Since January 2013, when the Defendant was unable to receive economic support from his/her husband due to a dispute with his/her father who started from around January 2013, the Defendant was able to use the money for living expenses, etc. by deceiving the money from the victim C, who is the head of the office of “B”, who is the head of the office of “B”, by means of borrowing money under the name of the money borrowed.

On January 7, 2014, the Defendant: “The use of the passbook was suspended due to the incident with his or her father” to the victim in an insular place, and the money is urgently needed.

A false statement to the effect that a loan of KRW 5 million is to be repaid is to be received from the injured party as a loan, and that member received KRW 5 million from the injured party on the same day as the loan, and the injured party received the total sum of KRW 415 million through 27 times from around that time to March 20, 2017 from around that time, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table 27 times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to C and D;

1. A remittance statement and the details of each E dialogue;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (for a time, 3,5,9);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, Articles 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes / [the scope of recommending punishment] The reason for sentencing under Article 50 of the General Fraud / [the scope of recommending punishment] the criteria for descriptive style (one year to August 6): The increase in the first step [the special aggravated person] type as a result of the combination of concurrent crimes during a considerable period of time [the decision of sentencing] where the defendant commits repeatedly for a considerable period of time (the special aggravated person] [the decision of sentencing] is in depth, such as where the defendant repents his mistake and submits a rebuttal over several occasions, there is no history of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and there is no history of criminal punishment except once a fine, and the health of the defendant is not good due to the urology, etc.

However, the defendant emphasizes his own re-defense to the nearest victim.