If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

From January 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 18:00 on January 23, 2014, at the headline of the Defendant’s operation located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (b) placed the victim D with a room of 22 million won on one side in the development area of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; (c) 400,000 won is insufficient; and (d) lent KRW 4 million,00,000,000 to be repaid within two months.

“...”

However, the defendant did not have the ability to purchase the above room and did not have the intent or ability to repay money to the victim within two months.

Nevertheless, the defendant, as mentioned above, made a false statement to the victim, and acquired the victim's 4 million won from the victim on January 24, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. The borrowing certificate shall be subject to laws and regulations; or

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion was that the Defendant borrowed 4 million won from the injured party, and the Defendant was unable to pay the agreed amount due, but at the time of borrowing money, the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the said money.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, namely, ① the Defendant was expected to pay the said money with the purchase price of the head office that the Defendant had operated at the time of borrowing money from the injured party.

However, it is clear that the said head's office will be sold prior to the due date of the said money.

There is no circumstance to see that the above head of the office was sold, and ② the sale of the head of the office was the first 2015 year prior to the due date, and the Defendant’s repayment of the said money to the victim was the first 2 years prior to the expiration of the two years prior to the date of repayment. ③ The Defendant’s repayment of the said money to the victim was the first 4 million won prior to the borrowing of the money.