The defendant worked as the insurance company's place of business.

The Defendant, around November 28, 2012, worked for the Victim D in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul) on November 28, 2012, concluded that “The Defendant, at the time, has accumulated the obligation of the previous insurance solicitors to raise the expenses for the scarf costs while working as the insurance company’s place of business, and that even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim by entering into a multiple insurance contract, he/she should preferentially use it for the repayment of the above borrowed money and the payment of the insurance premium for the insurance contract concluded with the customer, etc., so even though he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay it, the Defendant, despite having no intention or ability to additionally employ the insurance solicitor, is required to pay the victim with the money without a mold. He/she is an insurance solicitor who has the ability to attend a sound workplace, and can fully pay it.”

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, obtained from the victim the total sum of KRW 150 million from the victim to the dynamic securities account (F) in the name of the Defendant on November 28, 2012, KRW 80 million around November 30, 2012, KRW 30 million around December 27, 2012, KRW 25 million, and KRW 25 million around January 31, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Entry of the defendant in part of the protocol of interrogation of suspect into the prosecution (including D substitute part);

1. Report on investigation (report on the details of loans borrowed by suspects);

1. Certificates of deposit;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no criminal intent to acquire by deception against the defendant at the time of his/her career certificate, passbook statement, statement of payment, transcript of register.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant borrowed money from the victim, and is an insurance solicitor.