The defendant is a person who operated a restaurant in the name of Hongcheon-gun C in Gangwon-do.

On May 31, 2016, the Defendant loaned KRW 50 million to the victim E in the above D restaurant, and paid the money to the victim E within three months after the close-down, and the Defendant paid the money in installments after three months.

Interest shall be paid in 250,000 won per month.

1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular property and, at the time, paid approximately KRW 65 million to KRW 1.2 million each month, and paid as interest. Since the operation of the above D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D restaurant was difficult, there was no fixed income. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to repay it

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 5 million from the victim on the same day as a loan, was granted from the victim on the same day. From October 2014 to May 31, 2016, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 7.6 million from the victim F, such as the statement in the list of crimes attached to the crime committed from around October 2014 to May 31, 2016, and received a total of KRW 20.7 million from the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to G, E, F, H, I, and J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a loan certificate, each loan certificate, each loan certificate, inquiry about the details of financial transactions, each statement of bank transactions by account, each statement of bank transactions, each account transaction, credit information, and the details of transactions by account;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, Articles 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel denies the criminal intent of defraudation in sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes. However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant was in excess of his/her obligation at the time when the defendant borrows money from the victims or makes the victims pay money in lieu of guidance, and the defendant's income is paid with the interest of obligations to financial institutions and private persons.