[2012 Highest 4894]

1. On January 21, 2008, the Defendant: (a) delivered to the victim the securities in blank, “F of the Plaintiff,” “F of the Plaintiff,” “F of the issuance date,” “G number,” and “B number,” and “B value,” the Defendant stated that “this promissory note reduction is used at the discount of the promissory note, and borrowed money necessary to pay.”

However, the above promissory note was aware that the Defendant was unable to pay the amount of the promissory note because it was a copy, not the original, and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount even if he borrowed money from the victim due to the lack of clear property at the time.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, has received on February 11, 2008 KRW 1 million from the victim to a bank account in the name of H, which the Defendant informed the victim, and received KRW 300,000,000 from the victim to the account in the name of H, and the same year.

3.3.6 million won is delivered in cash, and on the 10.10 million won of the same month, the sum of KRW 4.9 million was transferred to a single bank account under H’s name, and acquired by fraud.

2. Crimes against victims I;

A. A. On January 4, 2010, the Defendant stated that, at the home of the victim I of the damage from the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City J Apartment apartment 301, K, and that “A defendant takes charge of the finishing work for the construction of the new apartment of the Geongbuk-gu Incheon Special Metropolitan City, the victim and the victim living together,” and that “A defendant takes charge of the finishing work for the construction of the new apartment of the Geongbuk-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant would repay the amount of KRW 30 million to the defendant three months after the need for money in connection with the construction, and would allow L to perform the construction of the new housing and shower.”

However, there is no fact that the defendant is responsible for the above construction, and there is no intention or ability to allow the victim to do the shower construction work, and even if he borrowed money from the victim due to the lack of clear property at the time, he did not have an intention or ability to repay it.

The defendant.