1. On April 2013, even if the Defendant borrowed 60 million won from another person, the Defendant did not have any other income, and was making a “refiscing to return” the term “refiscing another obligation with the loan.” As such, even if the Defendant had had the victim B, who was a senior high school, made the guarantee and received the loan, did not have the intent or ability to normally repay the loan, and did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan even with the loan borrowed from the damaged person.

A. The Defendant, on April 2013, 201, sent a phone call to a police officer and sought a loan from the victim, and needs a guarantor to obtain a loan.

In doing so, the principal loan would have no damage due to the repayment of the loan. The loan would have been made by the victim at the end of April 16, 2013, KRW 400,000,000 from the loan (State) by the credit service company, and KRW 5,000,000 from the loan (State) by the Defendant around April 16, 2013, KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000 from the loan (State) by the L service company (State), August 21, 2013, KRW 5,000,000,000,000 from the loan (State), and KRW 3,4,000,000,000,000 from the loan (State).

B. On November 2013, 2013, the Defendant made a telephone call to the Defendant and repaid all the existing loans to the said money on the face of a week with a loan given under the name of four, and the said loan is also repaid.

“Along with a false language, the victim shall have the victim borrow KRW 4 million from the Hyundai Savings Bank on November 21, 2013, KRW 4 million from the LAF loan (ju), KRW 4 million from the LAF loan (ju), and KRW 5 million from the LAF social loan (ju), and KRW 4 million from the LAF loan loan, KRW 4 million from the LAF loan and KRW 5 million from the mountain and loan (ju) on the following day, and KRW 20 million from the LAF loan. The victim shall be bound to borrow the above loans from KRW 4 million from the LAF loan, KRW 4 million from the LAF loan and KRW 5 million from the loan (ju).