Of the facts charged in the instant case, fraud against the victim C.

1. "2016 Highest 1981";

A. On February 201, 201, the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to the victim E at the victim E house located in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, and the victim was still aware of it.

Along with a loan of KRW 20 million, a loan of KRW 100,000,000 is called as "one hundred million, in exchange for a loan of KRW 100,000."

However, in fact, the Defendant did not lend KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money from the victimized party to use it in the repayment of his/her own debt (hereinafter referred to as “the repayment”), and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the borrowed money from the victimized party.

On March 11, 2011, the Defendant, by deceiving the Defendant as such, obtained the delivery of KRW 19,480,000 from the damaged person as the borrowed money and acquired it by fraud.

B. The Defendant around July 31, 2012, at the same place as the above A, did not inform the victim E of the amount of KRW 100 million.

When a damaged person receives a loan, he/she shall first repay the existing loan with the loan, and the defendant shall repay the loan.

On July 31, 2012, “Around July 31, 2012, a victim made a loan of KRW 19,30,000 to a modern card loan, and the victim made a false statement to the victim “I would pay the loan of KRW 100,000 to the victim immediately.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any money to be paid to the Plaintiff at the time when the Defendant was in excess of his/her obligation, and was thought to use the borrowed money from the victimized person in his/her own repayment of his/her obligation (hereinafter referred to as “refluence to return”), and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money in the name of the victim.

On August 1, 2012, the Defendant, as such, obtained the delivery of KRW 19,30,000 from the damaged person as the borrowed money and acquired it by fraud.

(c)

From around 2011, the Defendant borrowed the passbook from E to E in the name of the post office deposit account in the name of E.