1. On April 12, 2010, the Defendant, who committed the crime against the victim B, around 102 Dong new apartment houses located in the name asbestos luminous 11-21, Jinnam-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, Seoul, with the rent for the towing workplace, will use only a few months of lending KRW 10 million to the victim who was aware of it with the rent for the towing workplace.

Interest was known and said to be “to take place.”

However, at the time, the Defendant was unable to repay the debt amounting to KRW 150 million accumulated due to husband’s business expenses, living expenses, etc., so-called “the so-called “the so-called “the prevention of return” was committed, and there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party due to the lack of certain income or particular property.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was transferred KRW 10 million to the account in the name of the Defendant on the same day from the damaged person to the account in the name of the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant, from January 17, 2012, by deceiving the victim in a total of five times, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and received a total of KRW 62,50,000 from the victim, from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. The Defendant who committed the crime against the Victim C is to pay the victim within three months from August 13, 2015 to the victim, who was aware of the fact that he was from the Jinju-si around 13, 2015 by telephone.

In addition, the operation was well-grounded, and that it would be repaid.

However, the Defendant, at the time, failed to repay the debt amounting to KRW 200 million accumulated due to living expenses, etc., so-called “the so-called “return prevention” was committed, and the Defendant was able to divorce with the Defendant’s husband, but the Defendant’s husband was scheduled to proceed with the operation of the main office. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victimized party, there was no intention or ability to repay the money.

Nevertheless, the defendant is on the same day from the injured party.