1. On February 6, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that he/she would receive a loan of KRW 40 million from the lending company by phoneing the victim C at the influence area at the influence area around February 6, 2015, and that he/she would receive a low interest rate loan from another lending company for three months after a week, and that he/she would settle the victim’s guarantee obligation by receiving a low interest rate loan from another lending company.

However, in fact, the Defendant exceeded 60 million won to the lending company and the bank, and was unable to obtain a loan from the bank due to low credit rating, and was liable to the surrounding persons for a debt of 10 million won or more per month, and was obligated to pay interest of 2 million won or more per month due to the above debt, and there was no specific income other than 2.8 million won per month, so even if the victim made a guarantee for the Defendant, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to resolve the victim’s debt guarantee obligation after three months.

The Defendant, on the same day, had the victim obtain 8 million won from the loan capital of the Defendant Company, 8 million won from the future loan of the Company, 8 million won from the Co., Ltd. of the Company, 8 million won from the Co., Ltd. of the Company, 8 million won from the Co., Ltd. of the Company, 8 million won from the non-com loan of the Company, 8 million won from the Co., Ltd. of the Company, 8 million won from the Co., Ltd., and 8 million won from the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd., to jointly and severally and severally guarantee the amount of 40 million won.

2. On July 10, 2015, the defrauded: (a) on July 10, 2015, the Defendant called the above victim at the Won-si, Won-si; (b) the Defendant was unable to receive the loan; and (c) the Defendant could not resolve the victim’s guarantee obligation; and (d) the victim could incur loss because it could not recover the victim’s guarantee obligation; (b) accordingly, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the Defendant would receive the loan from the lending company one month after lending the Defendant’s loan from the lending company in lieu of the Defendant’s obligation

However, the facts are the same as the Defendant stated in Paragraph 1, so even if the injured party gives repayment on behalf of the Defendant.