In fact, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim B, the Defendant did not have the intent to offer the victim with the claim for the return of the deposit of the house or the main store as a security, and even though the Defendant did not have the ability to repay the debt normally due to the absence of property except for the claim for the return of the deposit of the above lease, the Defendant would offer the victim’s claim for the return of the deposit of each lease deposit of the above main store at KRW 5,000,000,000, including four (4) monthly interest, to the principal, from the “B,” located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the victim around August 13, 201.

The phrase “the phrase was false.”

In other words, the Defendant received 13,700,000 won from the injured party to the bank account in the name of the Defendant for the purpose of borrowing from the seat, and received 16,300,000 won in cash directly at the same place on the same day and acquired 30,000 won in cash.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the prosecutor with respect to B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the loan certificate and transaction statement;

1. The relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act on the selection of punishment, the reasons for sentencing of punishment [the scope of recommendation] [the scope of punishment] of the basic area (from June to January 6] (the special sentencing sentencing factors] of the type 1 (the scope of less than KRW 100 million) of the general fraud [the decision] [the punishment is determined as ordered in light of the following: (a) details and methods of the crime; (b) the size and amount of the fraud amount; (c) the damage has not been restored; (d) the Defendant’s attitude presented after the crime was committed; and (e)