“.” The purport was “.

However, in fact, the Defendant had already concluded a contract to sell the building in the place of massage on October 1, 2013 to the J on the part of the Defendant, and there is no other sufficient financial capacity. Therefore, the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the principal and interest of the loan to the victim as agreed upon.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving such deception, received the remainder of KRW 97 million, excluding the amount of KRW 3 million prior to October 10, 2013, from the injured party, from the Defendant to the Defendant’s national bank account under the pretext of borrowing money.

2. Determination

A. Some of the statements in G, F’s investigative agencies and courts, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, are not consistent or consistent with the statements in G and F, and in light of the following circumstances recognized by G and F’s legal statements and the record in the instant case, it is difficult to believe them as they are, given that credibility falls.

00 million won from G through F, which is the agent of G, was previously known to the fact that the Defendant sold the said massage place to J, and that the J purchasing the said massage place knew that the Defendant intended to pay the principal and interest on the said loan, and that F demanded the J to pay the interest on the said loan. 0 G also confirmed a certified copy of the register of the land and the building register of the said massage place before lending KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and thus, the obligor of the loan whose right to collateral security was established in the said massage place is due to the contractual acceptance.