The defendant pays 20 million won to the petitioner for fraud.

On August 21, 2008, the Defendant paid the interest of 2.5% per month when he/she lends money to the victim C in Seoul for the operation of the automobile parts plant at Asan-si office around August 21, 2008.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, the Defendant, while there was no special property or income at the time, failed to pay the card price of KRW 15 million, and thus, even if he borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have the intent or ability to pay it, and not only borrowed money from the injured party but also was plans for personal use such as living expenses and repayment of personal debts.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and was immediately given 20 million won as the borrowed money from the damaged party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a letter of loan payments;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 25 (1), 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits for Compensation Orders;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant, at the time of borrowing money from the victimized party, was working for the company selling the healthy beverages beverage E, and was expected to receive 15% of the operating profit as remuneration, and that F would receive 1/2 of the remainder except the down payment of KRW 300 million of the service cost for the electric housing complex.

In that sense, because E's business has been poor, the defendant was unable to receive benefits from September 2008 without receiving benefits, and the defendant was unable to receive service fees from F, so it was only impossible to pay to the victim.

In addition, the victim was believed to be well-invested by the E business from the beginning and the defendant was paid benefits.