Seized evidence 1, 4 through 9 shall be confiscated, respectively.

The defendant.

"2016 Highest 254"

1. On May 23, 2013, the Defendant against the victim H was at the J office located in Pyeongtaek-si I, and the victim H, a workplace partner, purchased an apartment, and the remainder is insufficient.

The joint and several sureties shall be disposed of by the Jina Do which is currently held on the face of the week, and the loan shall be repaid within three months.

“Falsely speaking to the effect that it is “......”

However, in fact, the Defendant purchased K Apartment on April 30, 2013 and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant on May 10, 2013, and thus, there was no need to pay the remainder of apartment buildings. Even if the Defendant received a loan on the ground of the victim’s joint and several liability, he/she thought that it would be used as a repayment of interest on stocks investment, other loans, and there was no intention or ability to pay the loan within the agreed period

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim on the same day, and caused the victim to enter into a joint and several guarantee contract with the amount of 6 million won as security deposit for the loan of the above Diplomatic Loan Co., Ltd., the lending company, and for the money loan of the Jinter Co., Ltd., the defendant acquired the monetary benefits equivalent to 6 million won by borrowing the amount of 6 million won.

2. On September 24, 2013, the Defendant’s fraud against the victim E, F, C, D, and G made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 3 million as the cost of the surgery to the victim E, who is a workplace partner, from the office described in the preceding paragraph at around September 24, 2013.”

However, the defendant did not undergo a surgery, and the defendant was liable for a large amount of debt due to the failure of stock investment at the time, and since the real estate held by the defendant was not secured value due to the establishment of a third party mortgage, the real estate held by the defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the debt even if he borrowed money from the injured party.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby deceivings the victim on September 25, 2013 from the victim to the new bank account in the name of the defendant, and defrauds the victim into the new bank account in the name of the defendant. < Amended by Act No. 11845, May 23, 2013>