“A false statement” was made.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, it was thought that it would be used as a personal debt and cost of living, and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money from the injured party because it did not have any other property.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby his deceivings the victim, the amount of KRW 5 million on the 25th of the same month from the victim, and the same year.

7.2.1 million won, and the same month;

4.10 million won, 17.20 million won in the same month, 17.2 million won in the name of the defendant Eul, and 31.4.5 million won in each type of F, the same year;

8. 8.2 million won was deposited in E’s account and acquired by deceptiveation of 51.5 million won in total.

2. Although the defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel received money from the injured party as stated in the facts charged, it does not borrow money, but also means to operate a fishing place business in Vietnam and receive it as investment money, and the defendant did not have any intent to commit the crime of deception.

3. Determination

A. The nature of the victim’s money paid 1) Evidence that corresponds to the fact that the victim was the borrowed money that the victim promised to return the money paid to the defendant among the facts charged in the instant case is a statement made by the victim at an investigative agency (the entry in the D’s statement, the statement in the police’s statement in D’s statement, and the statement in D’s statement in the second police interrogation protocol against the defendant), and the remaining evidence is meaningful to the extent that the support is supported.

However, the victim sent money to this Court after hearing an explanation of the initial relationship in the context of “a loan or investment loan” in this Court.

corresponding thereto.