On September 2010, the Defendant intentionally accessed the adult amusement room in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, to the victim D (the age of 36) who became a customer employee, and subject to organized violence in breach of trust, the Defendant stated to the effect that “if internal prison is not a gucule, but a prison is not a gucule, and the internal branch is not a gucule, and the internal branch is not a gucule, and if the internal branch is short of money in order to open a singing room in D and C, it would be repaid in the following month.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was planning to invest part of the money received from the victim in the adult amusement room rather than singing, and the Defendant was scheduled to use the money received from the victim as living expenses, etc. because there was no particular revenue or property, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, he was accused of the victim as soon as he would have repaid the money, and received 20,000,000 won from the Gwangju Bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant using as the borrowed money from the victim.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each police officer's statement about D and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on details of transfers;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion about criminal facts, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion that the defendant received 20 million won from the victim. However, this assertion argues that the defendant's deception and loan should not be granted to the victim as stated in the facts of crime, such as the amount of money invested by the victim in the

However, according to the above evidence, it is sufficient that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the judgment of the court and defrauds the money under the pretext of the loan.