On April 208, the Defendant: (a) while running a restaurant in the E department store located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S. D, the Defendant was aware of as a customer, by introducing the victim F, who was his wife, and (b) was aware of the fact on the premise of marriage. On the premise of marriage, the Defendant was willing to borrow money from the victim of marriage with the victim of marriage, even though he did not intend to maintain marriage life with G.

1. On November 5, 2008, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant, through G, partially received the down payment, etc. for the use of the H restaurant operated by the department store E in Korea to run in the future, the Defendant borrowed money from the department store side and the contractual issues, which may arise, and subsequently, borrowed the money. The Defendant stated that “The Defendant would pay the money within the early time, although there is a deposit for the store in the future.”

However, the Defendant did not intend to marry with G as his/her father, and the deposit of H cafeteria, which talked on as a collateral for the borrowed money, was not more than KRW 40 million, and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the deposit even if it borrowed money from the injured party due to the absence of any particular property, except the restaurant deposit, etc.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was transferred KRW 70 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant on the same day from the victim.

2. On June 30, 2009, the Defendant was unable to contact G with the victim on the ground that “the problem of money was not resolved” was not resolved by the victim through the foregoing G at an insular place.

U.S. I apartment and BMW, which is currently considered as a whole, borrowed money from a lending company as security, and all of the money has not been repaid.

This only makes a false statement that "I will enter into marriage with G when I lend money because I would like to settle ice."

However, the Defendant did not have the intent to marry with G, which is his/her father, and borrowed money from the injured party under his/her own name, not as a loan to the lending company.