When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On July 30, 2018, the Defendant lent KRW 40 million to the victim E, who became aware of in the “C” restaurant located in the apartment building B in the Gunsan-si, Si, Gunsan-si, as a result of the introduction of the branch D.

The interest shall be paid on the 30th of each month on the loan of money, and the money shall be repaid after three months.

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, the Defendant, at the time, was bearing approximately KRW 30 million of personal debt, and the amount of KRW 4 million of credit extended to the Defendant was generated each month, while there is a need to pay approximately KRW 2.7 million of the principal and interest on the existing debt and KRW 2.7 million of the interest, monthly income, and KRW 600,000 of the monthly income. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money to the victim, there was no intention or ability to repay the money.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 4 million won through the Saemaul Treasury Account (Account Number:F) of D on the same day from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement of witness E in the court and the defendant's partial statement of witness D in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel did not have any intention or ability to make a repayment or deception, on the grounds that the content of the interior construction, the details of transactions for reporting additional taxes on G member stores, each business registration certificate (H music practice place, I restaurant), reply to a request for cooperation in each investigation, accusation letter, copy of a loan certificate, a copy of a process deed, a copy of a passbook transaction document, a copy of a passbook transaction document, a copy of a passbook transaction account account account, a non-fash, the defendant and his defense counsel had no intention or capacity to make a repayment.

The argument is asserted.

The deception, which is a requirement for fraud, refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in the transaction of property widely, and that are not necessarily required to make a false representation on the important part of the juristic act, but desire for the perpetrator by omitting the other party's mistake.