If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On December 20, 2009, the Defendant stated that “D” between the victim C in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “D,” which was operated by the victim C, was “AXA,” and received KRW 3,470,000,00 from the victim’s repair store in the repair store, that “The Defendant borrowed the name to enable the victim to claim the insurance repair cost for one Otop in the name of the party to claim the repair store in the future.” The Defendant received KRW 3,470,000,000 from the T to the repair store in the future.

However, even if the above insurance money was received from the victim, there was no intention to accept it.

The Defendant, as above, received KRW 3,470,00 from the victim by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement made to A by the police;

1. C’s petition;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;