The phrase “an investment would be repaid at a rate higher than the bank interest” was false.

However, the Defendant acquired real estate in the name of a juristic person, purchased real estate in the name of the juristic person, and did not repay the loan by unlawful means, such as appraisal price pooling, etc., and did not begin with the funds to take over the juristic person. The Defendant was thought to borrow money from the damaged person to use it as Defendant’s living expenses, etc., and there was no intention or ability to repay even if he did not receive investment money from the damaged person due to lack of any property or income under the bad credit standing at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) deceiving the victim as above; and (b) under the name of the victim, with the agricultural bank account under H’s H’s name as an investment loan from the victim; (c) KRW 20 million on December 2, 2013; and (d) KRW 25 million on February 28, 2014; and (e) the same year.

8. 29. 30 million won, per year;

9. 16.5 million won transferred on December 3, 2013 in cash, the amount of which is KRW 6 million on December 3, 2013, and KRW 4 million on February 29, 2014; and

3. 10.20 million won, and the same year.

4. 25.15 million won, and the same year.

5. 18.20 million won, per year;

6.3. It received a total of KRW 152 million, including the receipt of KRW 7 million.

2. Determination

A. Fraud should exist between deception, mistake, and disposal of property, and the prosecutor must prove this without reasonable doubt.

B. In the instant case, according to the victim E’s statement directly examined as a witness, even if the Defendant’s oral statement stated in the instant facts charged is false as alleged by the prosecutor, E does not lend it as stated in its reasoning.