An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

The Defendant, at around December 25, 2007, lent a restaurant operation fund to the victim D in the “J” restaurant operated by the Defendant in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, with a large number of real estate owned by the Defendant, and with a high power, he would pay back immediately if he lends the restaurant operation fund.

A false statement was made.

The facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant did not have any property in gambling and continued to borrow money from the neighbors; and (b) the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay money from the damaged party, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party to use it for the repayment of gambling funds, other than restaurant operating funds, or the money borrowed from the injured party to pay for the existing borrowed money, even if he borrowed money from the injured party.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim and receiving 4,500,000 won under the name of K, the Defendant, the mother of the Defendant, from the victim on the same day, was remitted from the victim to the account in the name of K, the mother of the Defendant, as well as from around that time to April 27, 2009, transferred 61,90,000 won in total over 16 times as stated in the list of crimes in the attached crime days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statements of witnesses D and M;

1. Partial statement of N of the witness;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the D substitute part);

1. Details of accounts in the AFF and the AFF bank, and a description of K transaction, and a statement of O transaction;

1. Investigation report (including confirmation of the Defendant’s criminal history of punishment related to the operation of the Defendant’s “J” restaurant, summary order), investigation report (including hearing of the Defendant’s telephone statement with the Defendant, and complete certificate of registration);

1. The defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel in a recording book borrowed gambling funds, not restaurant operation funds, from the injured party, and the victim also borrowed money with the knowledge of the defendant's gambling. Thus, there was no deception of the victim as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, and from time to time.