Around January 2013, the Defendant joined an order of priority (26 months, 400,000 won per unit) operated by the Victim C around January 2013.

On February 23, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, “I need to pay the money that he/she has received to Nonghyup, and I need to receive the money of money that he/she is not aware of the fact.”

However, at the time, the Defendant was in excess of the obligation due to the principal and interest of KRW 27,00,000 as the principal and interest of the credit obligation that he borrowed, and the Defendant only intended to pay the credit obligation with the credit amount if he had transferred the credit amount, and did not have any intention or ability to pay the credit amount normally.

On February 23, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 10,00,00 from the victim C to the account under the name of the Defendant for the term of payment of the time limit, and received KRW 2,3,91,12,13,15, and 16 from that time to April 12, 2013, the Defendant acquired KRW 4,970,00 in total for eight times, such as the list of crimes in attached Table 2, 3,9, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, and acquired KRW 4,970,00 in total from December 4, 2012 to April 8, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and C;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement by the police with regard to C (including D's statement);

1. A complaint;

1. A criminal investigation report (a copy of the details of financial transactions in the name of a suspect A or suspect);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of loans borrowed by the victim and a copy of the statement of transactions;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for the crime (a comprehensive determination of imprisonment, with prison labor for each victim);

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act for the aggravation of concurrent crimes

1. The gist of the assertion is that there was no deception of victims as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the defendant.