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

On June 10, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the monthly income is equivalent to three million won by directly operating his bookstore at the victim D’s residence located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul and 203, Seoul, and that the monthly income is owned by 100 million won, and that the real estate lease tax is owned by 100 million won.

However, there was no intention or ability to continue to pay the mutual aid money even if the mutual aid money was transferred to the victim.

Nevertheless, while the defendant, as if he had an economic ability to pay the fraternity, is in the name of borrowing from the victim while he is making a fraternity payment as if he had an economic ability to pay the fraternity.

7. On December 13, 2010, a total of 8,980,00 won, including three million won, was remitted through a passbook in the name of 10 times, and a total of 10,000,000 won was remitted to 5,60,000 won, excluding the above borrowed amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to loan certificates and statement of financial transactions by complainants;

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. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that, from June 10, 201, to February 12, 201, the sum of KRW 10,200,000 was paid as the deposit amount, and around December 2, 2010, the Defendant: (a) withdrawn from one of the two previous accounts that had been previously admitted after receiving the deposit amount from the victim D; and (b) treated all the money paid as the deposit amount of the two previous accounts to be paid as the deposit amount of the two previous accounts as the deposit amount of the previous accounts, and therefore, there is no obligation to repay, and there was no intention to deception.

2. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case.

1 Victim D shall be the defendant KRW 4.2 million on August 5, 2010, KRW 500,000 on September 2, 2010, and KRW 100,000 on September 2, 201.