The Defendant, who is a sales agent, was aware that the victim B was at a low appraisal of the above commercial building when taking over the Busan Maritime Daegu C commercial building, and had difficulty in receiving a loan from a financial institution. On May 2016, the Defendant told the victim at the sales office of the above commercial building, and provided the victim with an opportunity to gather the loan up to 80% from the financial institution in the Daegu metropolitan area so that he would be able to get the loan up to 80% of the sales price by well extracting the appraised value of the collateral at the financial institution in the Daegu metropolitan area. Accordingly, the Defendant changed the retainer amount to KRW 20 million.

However, the Defendant did not engage in the business related to loan brokerage, and did not have any special connection or business means for financial institutions in Daegu area, and there was no clear plan or measure to arrange loans that the victim wants.

In addition, since the money received from one injured party was thought to be consumed for his own living expenses or debt repayment, there was no intention or ability to arrange such loans even if he received money from the injured party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) received a sum of KRW 10 million from May 13, 2016, and KRW 20 million from May 16, 2016, under the name of the Defendant’s bank account (E) as a loan intermediary fee from the victim; and (c) received property gains by depositing KRW 20 million in the sum of KRW 10 million from May 16, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police on B [the defendant and his defense counsel] that F will allow the defendant to receive the appraisal price well; and

At the same time, the Defendant demanded KRW 20 million for expenses, and the Defendant sent this fact to the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim, and the KRW 13 million out of the amount received from the victim was deducted as the Defendant’s credit repayment with respect to F, and then granted KRW 7 million to F.

The argument is asserted.

However, each of the above.