The Defendant had the victim F, who operated the business of so-called the so-called “D distribution” in the Daejeon-gu shopping mall, operated the so-called “E branch,” and had the victim F, who operated the so-called “E branch,” jointly use the said shopping mall.

1. On September 6, 2010, the Defendant told the victim F to the effect that “The name of the above commercial building will be changed to four names by stating 30 million won to the owner of the building on the face of the owner of the building.”

However, in fact, the defendant was planning to use the deposit received from the victim for the personal repayment of the goods price liability. Since the above commercial building was leased in the name of G, the defendant could not change the tenant's name at will without the consent of G, and since the defendant was in the situation of bearing a debt equivalent to about 300 million won at that time, even if he received the deposit from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to change the tenant's name in the name of the victim after replacing the previous lease deposit.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 30 million won from the victim’s account under the name of the Defendant on the same day.

2. On December 6, 2010, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would make repayment to the said victim within two to three days if the said victim was economically difficult, and only 30 million won was lent.”

However, there was no intention or ability to repay the above money within the due date, even if the defendant borrowed the money from the victim because the defendant had borne a large amount of debt like Paragraph 1.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 20 million from the victim’s account under the name of the Defendant on the same day.

3. On December 201, the Defendant received a request from the victim to allow the use of the card terminal of the “D Distribution” because the card settlement terminal of the said “E” has broken out.