If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

1. Around November 28, 2006, the Defendant stated that “the victim C shall have a prompt use of the brine clinic in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government,” and that “the victim C shall have a 10 million won loaned only, and the interest shall be repaid within two months with three parts.”

However, even if the victim borrows money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay it normally.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 10 million won from the victim to the account in the name of the wife-Namnam on the same day, and acquired it by fraud.

2. On February 12, 2007, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would use a credit card and include it on the settlement date, if it is lent to the victim without any means to settle the account with a customer rapidly,” at the same place as in paragraph 1.

However, even if the credit card was lent from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the credit card price normally.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, did not pay the amount equivalent to three million won even after receiving a credit card from the National Bank from the victim, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to that amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;