Around January 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D's house of 106, 701, 106, 701, stating that "I will pay 90,000 won per month to the victim if I want to operate Kwikset service business, and if I borrowed 40,000,000 won of business funds, I will pay 90,000 won as interest, and the principal will pay it after one year."

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim at the time, he did not have the intention to use it as her husband’s business fund. Since interest and card payment for other obligations exceeding KRW 100 million were not paid properly, there was no intention or ability to pay the principal on the date of promise with respect to the money borrowed from the victim.

Around January 28, 2011, the Defendant received a total of KRW 39,150,000 from the victim to his own foreign exchange bank account on two occasions, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. The prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including D's statement)

1. A complaint;

1. Details of passbook transactions;

1. A certified copy of the register;

1. Application of the trading Acts and subordinate statutes by apartment zone;

1. Determination as to the assertion of counsel under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and relevant provisions of criminal facts

1. On the other hand, the defense counsel argues that the defendant merely borrowed money from the defendant to use the financial institution's debt or credit card payment for the purpose of paying the debt or credit card payment, and that it does not borrow money from the husband's Kwikset Service Fund.

In other words, the victim D consistently stated from the investigative agency to this court that “the defendant borrowed money from her husband’s Kwikset service business fund,” and there is no reason to believe otherwise, and ② the victim’s debt repayment is the defendant.