If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the fine shall be 100.

On August 21, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay money to the Victim C’s House located in Chuncheon-si, and would pay interest on a face value of KRW 20 million per month to the Victim and repay it after one year.”

However, in fact, the Defendant received money from the injured party to pay interest on the loans and use them for living expenses with a total of KRW 4.3 billion, and even if he received money from the injured party as the borrowed money due to the absence of any particular property, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it properly even if he did not receive it from the injured party.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received delivery of KRW 19,200,000,000,000 in front of the victim’s own check, KRW 10,000 per day per face value, KRW 1,000 per face value, KRW 8,000 per face value, KRW 1,000 per face value, and KRW 20,000 per cash.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Part of C's statement in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. A copy of a borrowed certificate and check, investigation report (Attachment of a certified copy of apartment register owned by the suspect), and the application of statutes for credit assessment;

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion in Articles 25(1), 31(1), 31(2), and 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning Compensation Orders and Sentence of Provisional Execution, the Defendant owned a large number of apartment buildings on August 21, 2013, and paid interest on the borrowed money for a certain period of time. Since the apartment investment project did not run properly, the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money to the victim, it is deemed that the Defendant had no criminal intent of defraudation.

The argument is asserted.

may be admitted by evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.