An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

[2014 Highest 4070] On September 2012, the Defendant purchased electricity equivalent to three kilograms from the victim F, who sells electricity on the street in front of Daegu Daegu, on three occasions, from the victim F, who sells electricity in front of Daegu, and has the victim engage in the business related to the atomic, and the Defendant had the victim be re-able.

reliance on the belief of this case.

After that, on October 21, 2012, the Defendant told the victim at the location of the victim's house located in Daegu-gu G, Daegu-gu, that “The Defendant would receive money from the export business after 2-3 days from the loan of money to purchase the original group in the field of debate, and the Defendant provided that “The Defendant would pay the victim with money from the export business after 2-3 days from the loan of money.”

However, in 2004, all property was put up due to the failure of the job placement office operated by the defendant, and the victim was in a situation where the victim was in a relationship with the defendant at the time of delivery and was used for the living expenses with the borrowed money, so even if the victim borrowed the above money from the victim, there was no intent and ability to repay the money.

In addition, from June 8, 2013 to June 8, 2013, the deceiving the victim by the above methods, such as the list of crimes in the annexed sheet, from the time when the victim was delivered KRW 3 million from the victim as the borrowed money, and all of the deceivings the victim by the above methods, and by receiving the total of KRW 56,50,000 from the lender as the borrowed money.

[2014 Highest 4219]

1. On October 12, 2011, the Defendant: (a) on October 12, 201, the Defendant, within a mutually influorous restaurant located in the new and sub-dong, Daegu Suwon-dong on October 12, 201; (b) together with H H, a woman living together; and (c) the victim I, a fluor of H, who was his/her partner, will be paid the fiber within three months of payment.

“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to repay money within the agreed date even if he borrowed money from the injured party as well as false statement to use it for the cost of living, not for the purchase of textile.

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.