The Defendant, from around January 2001, while operating the fraternity, failed to properly manage the fraternity from the fraternity, and was insufficient to pay the fraternity. On the other hand, the Defendant operated the fraternity with the so-called “lacing” system that pays the fraternity by borrowing money from another person. Thus, even if organizing the different fraternity, the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to normally operate it, and even if he borrowed money from another place or repaid the fraternity and the obligation due to the repayment of the fraternity, there was no intention or ability to repay it.

1. Fraud against the victim C;

A. On January 15, 2006, the Defendant stated, by telephone, that “If the Defendant, from May 15, 2004 to December 15, 2005, lent KRW 10 million to the victim, the Defendant would use for a large amount of money and make a full payment immediately, with the payment from May 15, 2004 to December 15, 2005.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the ability to pay 10 million won to the victim, but did not lend the above money to the victim to delay the repayment period, and if he borrowed the money from the victim, he would immediately repay it, and even if he was deferred the repayment period, he did not have the intention or ability to perform it as the promise.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above and allowing the victim to borrow money from the victim on the same day without being immediately paid to the defendant, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the benefit of the time.

(2) On August 17, 2007, the Defendant stated, by telephone, that “If the Defendant lends money to the victim in need of cash due to the remaining businesses, he will use the money for a short time and make a full payment immediately.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he borrowed money from her husband's business at other places.