If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

The defendant, without the intention or ability to work at the business establishment that is introduced by the victim C, was aware of the fact that he/she belongs to the victim and acquired money from the victim in advance from the victim on April 22, 2013, and on April 22, 2013, at the E-job placement office operated by the victim located in the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu, the defendant needs to pay the money as soon as he/she intends to lend the

“The victim made a false statement to the victim.”

The defendant has been granted KRW 100,000 on the day from the damaged person, and the same year.

4. 24. 24. The Defendant’s account F with the Defendant’s name transferred 8.9 million won by means of transfer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and witness G;

1. Part concerning C’s statement in the second interrogation protocol against the defendant during the police investigation.

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. The following facts are acknowledged by the accusation, investigation report (the previous and the summary order attached thereto), summary order / indictment 1 copy of each indictment / 1 of the above evidence. In other words, the defendant, after receiving loan from the victim C to receive the loan from the victim C in the name of the non-deposit, is deemed to have been three or more times, but the period of working in three or more different ways is very short. In particular, the defendant, in the case of the "HDa" located in Youngcheon-si, the three-si, which was introduced, failed to work after going to work after going to this only, and the defendant's reason that the defendant could not work for the long time in the multiple days introduced by the victim was because he forced the business owner to engage in T pockets or commercial sex acts. However, it seems sufficient that the above multiple owners forced the defendant to engage in the business of using the tweet or to force commercial sex acts, and if the defendant wants to continue to deliver only the delivery business.