On September 21, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “In order to purchase an Ecuas car, the Defendant would pay KRW 1,647,341 per month for 48 months on the loan of KRW 68 million to the victim (in order to purchase an Ecuas car, the Defendant would pay KRW 1,647,341 per month for the 48-month period.”

However, in fact, the Defendant, at the time, had a debt equivalent to KRW 66 million with the new bank at the time. The Defendant had a debt of KRW 10 million in total to the branch, but did not have any property such as real estate under the name of the Defendant, and was paid KRW 2.5 million each month from the accompanying D, but was planned to resign the said D and develop the PC game program from June 2012. As such, the Defendant was thought to have purchased the vehicle from the victim to purchase the vehicle, and did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan, even if the Defendant purchased the vehicle with the loan from the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim and received 68 million won from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the choice of punishment [the scope of recommending punishment] The basic area (from June to one year and six months) of the first category (the period of less than 100 million won) of general fraud [the decision of sentencing] has no victim’s damage recovery [the decision of sentencing]. The defendant is not present in the judgment of this case, and the defendant is not present in the judgment of this case, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, including the defendant’s occupation, age, character and behavior, and environment, shall be determined as per the order.