It shall pay 173,650,000 won to the applicant by fraud. The above compensation order shall be the compensation order.

"2018 Highest 907"

1. The former police officer is the victim C, who is a former police officer.

The Defendant, on August 2015, was waiting for a patrol vehicle in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and was waiting for a patrol vehicle with the victim, on the part of the Defendant, on the part of the victim, who was waiting for the patrol vehicle within six months from his/her own seat.

If there is no money, the bank will receive a loan from the bank.

The principal will be guaranteed.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not know the source of investment guaranteed by the Defendant, and had already incurred a loss equivalent to approximately KRW 150 million due to stock investment, and even if the Defendant received an investment amount from the damaged party, there was no intention or ability to return the profit or principal to the victim, even if he did not receive an investment amount from the damaged party.

The Defendant, as above, was granted KRW 135,650,000 from the time when the victim was accused of the victim and the victim was delivered around 26th of the same month to the time from December 22 of the same year, from the time on which he received KRW 30,000,00 in total from the victim, such as the first installment of the annexed crime list 1 to December 2 of the same year.

2. The Defendant’s joint and several liability fraud requires money to the victim as a mother-friendly hospital and the Philippines’s business in the mutual infinite-dong, Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul, on November 2015.

On the end of January, the investment amount was recovered and settled, and the loan company's joint and several surety was changed."

However, the Defendant was unaware of the source of investment guaranteed by the Defendant, and the Defendant had already incurred a loss equivalent to KRW 150 million due to stock investment, as well as a debt of KRW 100 million or more, and thus, even if the victim was provided with a joint and several surety and received a loan, there was no intention or ability to repay the loan within the period agreed upon.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and caused the victim to do so on June of the same month.