From January 2015, the Defendant was urged to pay the principal and interest equivalent to KRW 3 million per month due to the debt amounting to KRW 100 million against financial institutions from around January 2015, and was offered additional loans through a nameless loan broker on January 2016, and then deducted the victim B who works as a bus driver from the same bus company for three months.

At the request of the victim as a joint guarantor, a total of KRW 45 million was loaned from eight lending banks and loan companies, but it was impossible to repay the loan by the lapse of three months, the victim was urged to deduct the joint and several surety from the victim.

Therefore, the defendant in collusion with a nameless loan broker, and the fact at the D office located in C around May 19, 2016 at the time of strike, and even if the defendant did not have the ability to repay the loan even if he received the loan under the name of the victim, and he did not have the intent or ability to change the loan holder in the name of the defendant from the name of the victim within one month, the defendant would be able to avoid any damage by changing the loan debtor's name after he repaid the loan under the name of the victim in the name of the defendant.

“A corporate bank” as stated in the bill of indictment of the bank in the name of the victim is deemed to be a clerical error, and the above part was revised to “Korean bank” to the extent that it does not infringe the defendant’s actual right of defense. The above part is corrected to the extent that it does not infringe the defendant’s right of defense. The above part is corrected to the extent that the victim’s actual right of defense is not infringed on.

Since the "Korean bank" as stated in the indictment of the National Bank under the name of the defendant appears to be a clerical error, the defendant's person.