In September 2010, the Hong Kong head office notified the Defendant of the liquidation plan of the Korea branch on the grounds of the business difficulties of the Korea branch, and the Defendant was willing to obtain the loan from the head office without paying the loan received from the head office on the ground that “the Defendant will operate the money by acquiring the shares of the Korea branch in the main office by lending the money from the main office.”

On December 20, 2010, the Defendant drafted a loan agreement stating that “The Hong Kong head office that is the victim, and the Hong Kong principal office, shall transfer 100% of the shares of D owned by themselves to the Defendant, and shall lend 800,000 US dollars to the Defendant, but from December 30, 2011 to December 30, 2015, the Defendant shall pay 50,000 US dollars (200,000 US dollars) principal and 5% interest per annum from December 30, 2015.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay principal and interest even if he borrowed US$ 800,00 from the victim.

On December 24, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received US$80,00 from the victim to the head of the Tong on December 24, 201, and acquired the same amount by fraud.

2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant prepared a loan contract as stated in the facts charged in the instant case and received USD 800,000 from the victim. However, the above USD 800,00 was paid instead of the Defendant’s acquisition of the Defendant’s Korean branch offices by the victim’s debt excess. The Defendant entered into an agreement with the victim’s representative director E and the director in charge of finance to not file any claim on the repayment of the principal and interest of USD 80,00

In the end, the defendant did not commit deception in the process of receiving USD 800,000.