Around April 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) from D operated by the Victim C, in a substantial area of Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and (b) through E, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would sell Dogs, Dogs, etc. necessary for funeral services” to the victim via E; (b) the Defendant would use only three months to lend KRW 30 million; and (c) the Defendant would have repaid Dogggggs with Dogggggggs. It would reduce half of the F that the Defendant operated by Cheongju-si, but would have repaid before receiving Doggg.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, it was thought that the Defendant would use it for the repayment of the obligation such as the F’s customer who operated the Defendant, and the F’s operating status was difficult, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay it.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 29.1 million from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant on the same day as the loan, and received KRW 27 million in total from the account under the name of the Defendant on June 27, 2014, and received KRW 59.1 million in cash.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement of C and E;

1. Certificates of borrowing each and certificates of deposits without passbook;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the selective sentencing of imprisonment, and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the considerable time has elapsed to the present day and the damage seems to have not been completely recovered: Provided, That the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account all the circumstances, including the defendant's primary offender, his age, character