The defendant is the representative of the Office of (State)C, and the victim D is the representative of the Office of (State) E.

around August 2016, the defendant found the F. E. (State) office of the Incheon Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City F. F. 302 operated by the victim D as the victim D's office, and the office of the (State)C is new, and there is a need for KRW 20 million as the purchase cost and operation cost of various houses.

The amount of money to be used only for 15 days shall be lent to Gangwon-do. The land of KRW 200,000 per pro-Japanese ownership is located in Gangwon-do, and even if the land is sold, he/she shall not be able to fully pay the money.

1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”

However, there was no idea that the defendant will use the money as office operating expenses only for personal purposes, such as lending money from the victim, and there was no real estate owned by the defendant. Therefore, there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of KRW 19,190,000 from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant’s wife G for the purpose of office operation expenses, etc. < Amended by Act No. 14, Aug. 24, 2016; Act No. 19005, Sep. 6, 2016; Act No. 16300, Sep. 6, 2016; Act No. 17888, Oct

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A statement of financial transactions, specifications of transactions by account, and details of transactions by entry and withdrawal;

1. Investigation report (H telephone conversations), investigation report (report on investigation into telephone conversations) (the defendant and his defense counsel) (the defendant and his defense counsel have borrowed money from the injured party under the name of the criminal agreement against the defendant-friendly criminal case; and

I would have paid the cost of transportation by soil at the construction site by the J, but it could not be paid due to the failure to receive the cost of construction. Therefore, there was no deception of the victim as stated in the facts of the crime and there was no intention to acquire the money by fraud.

The argument is asserted.

However, the evidence adopted and examined by this Court can be found as follows.