If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On November 20, 2013, the Defendant called the victim C at the Gambi-si, Young-si on November 20, 2013, and “The husband and wife gains large profits while running a real estate auction and rental business.

In order to return the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the loan of the deposit of the deposit of the loan of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of

However, even though the pre-tax amount to be refunded to the revenue was 17 million won or more, the defendant was aware that the victim was 60 million won of surplus funds, and he was able to use the funds borrowed from the victim due to urgent debt repayment, such as the health insurance arrears of the defendant husband, bank arrears, etc., and did not have any intention or ability to repay the borrowed funds after the month.

On November 21, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 60 million won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of her husband D on November 21, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Part of the statement made by the police with regard to D (second time);

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. F’s written statement and C’s additional statement;

1. Account transactions;

1. Each investigation report [The defendant and defense counsel did not deceiving the defendant to use the amount of 60 million won in full to return the deposit money of this case to the victim for the purpose of returning the deposit money of this case, and the defendant did not intend to acquire the money of this case because he/she had intention or ability to repay the money of this case around December 23, 2013, the agreed repayment date, and therefore did not intend to acquire it.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the Defendant appears to have borrowed the entire amount of the instant money to the victim with her husband D, for the purpose of returning the deposit. The victim is the victim of the instant money.