If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

Around June 2011, the Defendant had no intention to “number of days” even if he/she lent bonds from the victim B to others and borrowed money on the bottom of the so-called “number of days” in which he/she recovers money from the victim B.

Nevertheless, without notifying the Defendant of the aforementioned circumstances at the New-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul, on June 19, 2011, if the Defendant lent money to the victim who was in charge of "number of days" against the merchants adjacent to the Shindong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu (hereinafter referred to as "number of days") and deceiving the said merchant as if he could be seen as referring to the profits accrued from ancient interest, thereby obtaining KRW 5 million on June 20, 2011, and acquired KRW 25 million in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

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

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the criminal punishment records, the number of defraudation of this case, the recovery of considerable damage, the details of the crime, etc.