When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On January 14, 2015, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would make a criminal complaint against the victim B by leaving the customer’s counter-defluence at a set-sum bail with the Defendant (Defendant) at the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, with the Defendant’s false statement that “The Defendant would make a monthly interest rate of KRW 100,000 per month and receive a loan from the employee for a period of four months.”

However, the Defendant had no specific property and had no intent or ability to pay the above money even if he borrowed the money, and all of the Defendant intended to use the money individually.

The Defendant, as above, was issued KRW 20 million in total over four occasions, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Table, as well as receiving KRW 3 million from the injured party by deceiving the injured party and deceiving him.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A complaint, a statement of details of transactions by account, a certificate of transfer, a certificate of borrowing and lending, a certificate of process of lending and borrowing of money, a C bank liquidity transaction, a detailed statement of passbook transactions by C bank, an inquiry of past transaction details, and a record of records thereof;

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to confirm and report the result thereof;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The judgment on the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the issue of litigation costs is that the defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the injured party as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. However, the defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the injured party on January 2015, and had the intent and ability to repay the loans with the workplace under the pretext of agreement, and the KRW 10 million, which was received on March 2015, was in operation with the defendant as of March 2015.