In addition, it was false to the effect that it is "the credit card to be used as expenses necessary for one loan is different."

However, at the time, the Defendant was trying to work in a restaurant operated by the mother of the Defendant at the time, and there was no income from lack of a certain occupation. Moreover, the Defendant was thought to use money and credit cards from the injured party as living expenses, entertainment expenses, etc. even if there was no property other than one used car, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to receive the loan in the name of the injured party as agreed with

On June 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received 300,000 won from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant from the victim; and (c) received 27,43,000 won in total over 28 occasions from around that time to November 16, 2015, and received six credit cards, such as Hyundai Card, from the victim; and (d) obtained 18,757,327 won in the attached Table 2, such as Hyundai Card, and acquired pecuniary profits by settling the amount of money equivalent to 18,757,327 won in the attached Table 1.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim and acquired the total amount of 46,190,327 won.

2. The judgment of the court below is a crime falling under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 354 of the Criminal Act, applies mutatis mutandis under Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, where the victim and the offender have a relationship under the above provision, a public prosecution may be instituted only upon the victim's complaint. According to the records of this case, the defendant is deemed to have a relationship with the victim D in the third degree, her mother and her mother. Thus, the defendant has a relationship with the victim as set forth in

This case.