On March 26, 2015, the Defendant, by telephone, to the victim C who became aware of as the owner of the laundry site around March 26, 2015, shall pay the monthly payment immediately after lending one million won as he/she needs to pay his/her care.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the Defendant borrowed money with the false statement that there was a bad credit standing at the time, and the monthly income was not specified, while the monthly income was not paid in excess of six million won, etc., and thus, it was necessary to have a hospital expenses. Since the Defendant thought to use it in the installment payment, he did not have an intention or ability to change it normally even if he borrowed money from the injured party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 1 million from the victim to the new bank account in the name of D as the borrowed money, and received KRW 84,850,000 in total over 40 times from that time to February 12, 2017, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 40.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor and police with respect to C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a detailed statement of deposit transactions, investigation report (up to attaching details of account transactions in the name of a suspect Busan Bank), investigation report (up to attaching details of account transactions in the name of a third party who has received a remittance from a suspect or complainant), credit information history, inquiry of customer information, details of transactions in each deposit and withdrawal, investigation report (up to the confirmation of details of account transactions);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (elective of imprisonment);

1. As to the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant did not comply with a request for attendance of an investigative agency for a considerable period of time. In light of the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes Act (hereinafter “the Defendant has to voluntarily withdraw from the investigative agency,” the Defendant did not comply with a request for attendance of the investigative agency.