When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On July 14, 2015, when the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 10 million from a financial institution around 2012, the Defendant called the Defendant to the friendly victim B who was responsible for the guaranteed obligation for the Defendant, and called the Defendant as the surety before he was given a loan to the Defendant.

A false statement was made to the effect that the surety will be removed for KRW 10 million.

However, the facts did not have the intent or ability to repay the money even if the victim borrowed the money, and there was no intention or ability to exempt the victim from the guaranteed debt previously borne by the victim.

The defendant deceiving the victim as above and let the victim borrow KRW 30 million from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. on the same day, and then, he acquired the victim by remitting KRW 10 million with the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of the defendant on the same day and KRW 20 million with the same account on the 15th day of the same month, and 30 million with the same account on the 15th day of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant (including the second, second, second, and second statements);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (a certificate of full payment of loans submitted by a suspect and a statement of passbook transaction);

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of the Aggravated Punishment Order is that the amount of damage caused by the instant fraud is not at least KRW 30 million, and that the content of the deception is not considerably good, such as introducing the victim’s loan bromoer as his own relative.

However, the defendant recognized his mistake and is in profoundly against himself.

The defendant has to pay part of the amount of damage, and the victim wishes to have his wife at present.