The victim B is the defendant's wife's leave of work, and the defendant is in a relationship with the victim.

1. On October 2016, 2016, the Defendant committed a Habman in the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C and D Branch on October 2016, the Defendant entered the victim’s vehicle with “the mother was suffering from hospital expenses.”

There is no lot of money within the family, and it is difficult to talk about the wife due to divorce action.

D Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.

Dratate the end of the cutting test.

As a result, we called 'the homicide' at the same time.

However, the Defendant did not think of divorce with his wife, and even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party due to the lack of personal debt and living expenses, her mother did not intend to use the money as her hospital expenses, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money to the injured party due to economic difficulties.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim on November 7, 2016, transferred the victim’s KRW 20 million from the victim, and KRW 40 million from November 9, 2016, to the Defendant’s E bank account.

2. On December 2016, 2016, the Defendant: (a) called “the mother’s hospital expenses loan her mother to another mother;” called “the mother’s hospital expenses to be lent to the first policeman on December 2016.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party due to a large amount of personal debt and shortage of living expenses, her mother did not have the intent to use it as the hospital expenses, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money to the injured party due to economic difficulties.

On December 10, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 7 million won from the victim to the G bank account of the Defendant or F on December 10, 2016.

3. On February 2, 2017, the Defendant called that “Around February 2017, the Defendant may pay back the loan to the victim and reduce the interest that he/she would have repaid if he/she received a loan from the victim with a loan of No. 2 and provided a loan with a loan of No. 1 financial right.”

However, it is true.