On August 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the D legal office of the Republic of Korea, a notary public who is located in the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea in the United States-si of the United States-si of the United States-si of the Republic of Korea; (b) transferred the victim E with no mold until February 30, 2016; and (c) proposed the victim E to have his/her children employed in the Hyundai Motor.

“The purpose was to make a false statement.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay back money to the injured party even if he borrowed money from the injured party due to no particular property or income, or to have his children employed the modern automobile.

Nevertheless, the defendant, as above, made a false statement to the victim, and he obtained the sum of KRW 40 million at the face value of KRW 28 million from the victim, i.e., the victim, who is the victim, and obtained the payment of KRW 40 million at the face value of KRW 12 million in cash.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Complaint;

1. Process deed, loan certificate, note, and details of transactions of entering and withdrawing money;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each investigation report;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding criminal facts under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 347 of the Criminal Act

1. The alleged defendant does not borrow money in return for employment mediation for the victims' children.

At the time when the defendant borrowed money, there was an intention to repay and pay the money.

2. First of all, the defendant is willing to arrange the employment of the victim's children.

It is considered that the victim had borrowed money after deceiving the victim.

After the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, the issue of employment of the injured party children became an issue.

The argument is asserted.

However, on August 27, 2015, the victim lent money to the defendant to the defendant. On August 21, 2015, the victim transferred 300,000 won to the defendant as expenses for providing meals to the modern vehicle warden and the branch of the defendant. The defendant does not use it as meal expenses.