1. On March 2013, the Defendant against the victim B is expected to repay the victim B with money from the “D” Lestop in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, within one month.

“A false statement” shall be made to the victim on April 2, 2013, and on April 2, 2013, the victim shall be reimbursed within one month of additional loans of KRW 40 million.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any property other than 3 million won in the month of monthly wage. Since the Defendant loaned money from the lending company and the lender to the extent of KRW 100 million, the Defendant received money from the damaged party and repaid the existing loan, and the remainder was thought to be used as the cost of living, so even if he borrowed money from the damaged party, there was no intention or ability to change it within the date of promise with the injured party.

Around March 19, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 11 million from the damaged party, from the Defendant’s account (E) around March 19, 2013, KRW 29 million from the above account around April 4, 2013, and KRW 11.5 million from the above account on April 5, 2013, and received KRW 52 million from the Defendant to deliver KRW 500,000 in cash around April 8, 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. On April 2, 2013, the criminal defendant against the victim F in a place where it is not known to him/her on April 2, 2013, “B is granted a loan by him/her, and joint and several sureties is changed. A joint and several sureties will repay the money borrowed by B within one month.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any property other than the 3 million won per month of monthly wage. Since the Defendant loaned money from the lending company and the 100 million won to the lender, the amount of the debt was increased to 100 million won, the victim received the money from the B and repaid the existing loan with the money, and the remainder was thought to be used for the cost of living, so there was no intention or ability to repay the loan by the date promised with the victim.