If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant sent a telephone call to the victim B at a place where he was unaware of the place where he was a police officer, and the Defendant stated that “I would pay back all principal and interest every month after one year if her husband and wife loaned money for marriage in May of the year to her mother and child.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was liable for bonds and loans that exceed KRW 100,000 at the time, and thus, the Defendant thought to use the borrowed money or the time limit money received from the victim for repayment of other obligations in the form of so-called “fluence”, and did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 5 million each from the victim on or around the 23th day of the same month and around March 21, 2016, and acquired KRW 10 million in total from the victim on or around the 21st day of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on deposit transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) 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;