The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

1. Defendant B, on January 6, 2014, in the “E Multilater” for the operation of the Victim D, which is located in the Military Service C, the victim “I am extremely from the E Multilater.”

A father said that annoyed, annoyed, a hospital fee is rapidly higher, and 2.5 million won is changed in advance.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the above advance payment from the victim's side.

The Defendant was given 2.5 million won in total to the post office account (F) in the name of the Defendant from the victim.

2. Defendant A’s Defendant (hereinafter “E”) in the “E multilateral bank” of the victim D’s operation, which was in the Military Service C on January 6, 2014, would be extremely open from the E multilateral bank.

In the house, it was said that the water supply has broken down and 3 million won has been lent."

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the above advance payment from the victim's side.

The Defendant received a total of three million won from the damaged party’s account in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. The Defendants: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of a fine for negligence

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014);

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, applicable to the order of provisional payment;