Part of the facts charged shall be corrected to the extent that it does not infringe the defendant's right of defense.

On September 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on September 25, 2012, the Defendant: (b) stated that “E” operated by the Defendant in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, the Defendant loaned money to the victims F, “on the face of a large number of people in the surrounding areas, and will receive 2% interest each month.”

However, the defendant was thought to use money for personal purposes from the victim, and there was no intention or ability to pay interest or pay principal.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 96 million from 18 times as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Form from September 25, 2012 to September 14, 2013 from the victim’s account (Account Number: H) in the name of G from September 25, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Partial statement concerning the defendant, excluding the five to eight pages of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution;

1. The statement of F in the police interrogation protocol of the suspect, and the statement of part of the defendant against the defendant;

1. A copy of a bankbook, details of financial transactions, a loan certificate, etc.;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (suspect A credit information inquiry and response attachment);

1. Determination as to the assertion by the relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the Defendant of the choice of imprisonment, and defense counsel

1. The summary of the assertion ① Since the victim did not specify the place of use as “loan to a third party” at the time of lending money to the defendant, the defendant did not have deceiving the victim.

② The Defendant had certain incomes, such as running a physical distribution and performing night duty in a funeral hall, and paid interest for a considerable period of time. As such, the Defendant had the intent to repay and the ability to repay.

③ The victim was aware that the Defendant did not have any property due to bad credit standing, and thus, the Defendant’s deception.