1. Fraud;

A. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at around 15:00 on September 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) “A office for the management of Victim D, Inc., Ltd., in the south-gu Seoul metropolitan area, “I would be able to refund at a discount, because I would not have any money to prevent the bill; and (b) in the amount of the bill, I could prevent the proposal of the construction contract from being made.”

However, at that time, the Defendant had already been liable for the debt amounting to KRW 50 million to the victims, including KRW 90 million, and KRW 120 million, and KRW 62 million from many loan companies. Since there is little possibility of receiving construction payment from KRW 120 million, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the amount on the payment date of the bill after the loan from the victim, since there is little possibility of receiving construction payment from KRW 62 million.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained one promissory note with a face value of KRW 60 million from the victim, i.e., the same day from the same day ( issuer : E representative director D, date of issuance: September 15, 2015; date of payment: November 25, 2015) and one promissory note with a face value of KRW 50 million at face value ( issuer : E representative director D, date of issuance: September 15, 2015; date of payment: November 30, 2015).

B. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at the places indicated in paragraph (a) on October 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) “At the location indicated in paragraph (1); and (b) “At the time of lending a bill in order to supply the materials cost; and (c) at the time of using the bill to pay the payment by receiving the down payment for the construction work.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had borne a number of obligations as described in paragraph (a) at the time, and there was little possibility of receiving the construction cost since he did not receive the payment from E E, so even if he borrowed a promissory note in the name of E from the injured party.