If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Around May 4, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “it is difficult to operate an enterprise because there is no ethm money. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million operating funds, then the Defendant would have to complete payment without molding until December 4, 2011.”

However, the defendant, at the time, was liable for the amount of KRW 170 million, and was not paid the interest accrued therefrom, so even if he borrowed KRW 10 million from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the amount. It was thought that he used the money borrowed from the victim to pay the above debt, not the operating fund of the business entity, and the interest accrued thereon.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 1 million from the victim, namely, in the name of the business entity, for operating the business entity, and received KRW 9 million from the account under the name of the Defendant to the single bank account in the name of the Defendant.

In this respect, the defendant deceivings the victim and obtained 10 million won by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement made to C by the police statement;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statutes stating deposits without passbook, and a certificate of borrowing;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

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