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

On July 11, 2011, the Defendant stated that “Ac hotel coffee shop located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is needed to live in the place of commercial building construction works in which “in-house is invested” to the victim D. It borrowed 30 million won as collateral a promissory note with a face value of 50 million won issued by Sung Pung Industrial Co., Ltd. at a time of payment. If a promissory note is settled at the time of payment, the Defendant said that “Ac hotel coffee shop will pay in lieu of an internal loan.”

However, while EF used a promissory note as construction funds due to lack of construction funds in constructing a commercial building at the prime city in Gangwon-do, it was anticipated that EF would be unable to settle the said promissory note at the time that it was due to the lack of construction funds, and when it was required to pay a promissory note borrowed from the Sung Pung Industrial Co., Ltd., a subcontractor, it was required to lend an additional promissory note from the Sung Pung Industrial Co., Ltd., which was borrowed from the Sung Pung Industrial Co., Ltd., and pay the said note with the said money, and it was due to the lending of a promissory note from the Sung Pung Industrial Co., Ltd., which was borrowed from the said money. At the time, E was obligated to pay for the said KRW 50 million. Since E was aware of all of the fact, E was fully expected that it was difficult for E Co., Ltd. to pay the said promissory note at the time, while Defendant was also liable for the said amount of KRW 100,000,00.

As such, the Defendant deceptioned the victim and acquired 28 million won from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D;

1. Copies of each promissory note;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of confirmation note;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and selection of fines concerning the facts constituting an offense;