1. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant borrowed five million won from the victim C on November 12, 2014, and repaid KRW 3% of monthly interest and KRW 2 million of principal. The remainder of the debt on September 2015 was KRW 3 million.

On September 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to “Around September 2015, the Defendant: (a) repaid the remaining loans to the victim by telephone; and (b) paid the loans if the loans fall under the credit rating if the loans were to be repaid, then the Defendant would repay the total amount of KRW 13 million including the existing debts of KRW 3 million after one month.

However, the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to repay KRW 13 million after a month, even if he borrowed KRW 10 million to the victim, because the credit rating at the time was lower and the additional loan was higher than KRW 3 million, and even if he temporarily repaid the loan, he did not have the ability to repay KRW 13 million after the month.

The Defendant was delivered to the company bank account (D) in the name of the Defendant on September 10, 2015, KRW 10 million from the victim.

2. On October 23, 2015, the Defendant’s fraud, on October 23, 2015, included the victim’s “in an account with a loan of KRW 21 million from a lending company,” in a closed land, the credit rating is going up if the Defendant was placed in an account between the lending company and one month.

The guarantee was not used by the principal loan and it was separately bound without being used, but it was excluded from the guarantor after one month, and the debt amounting to KRW 13 million which has not been changed is also repaid in full.

The process certificate will also be duplicated, and if it is wrong, it will be transferred to the house.

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, the Defendant was planned to use the loan immediately even if he received the loan, and even if he temporarily holds the balance in the account, he did not get a credit rating on only one month, and did not have the intent and ability to fully repay the debt to the victim, and the quasi-loan company which caused the loan to exclude the guarantor without any reason, on the premise that he has a guarantor.