However, at the time, the defendant had no intention or ability to repay the debt of 6,000 won, and there was no fact that the mother D was the guarantor for the above debt of the defendant.

The Defendant received KRW 0,000 from the victim as a loan on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, it is insufficient to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, as stated in the facts charged of this case, is insufficient to prove that the Defendant, even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million as stated in the facts charged of this case, he did not have the intent or ability to repay it, and that the Defendant, even though he did not have to become the Defendant’s mother-friendly D, acquired the victim by deceiving the victim of KRW 10 million, without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.

The victim stated at the investigative agency that "the defendant was unaware of it, and he was aware of it in a somewhat pro-friendly relationship with the defendant's mother-friendly D. The defendant lent the 10 million won to the defendant, and the defendant was unable to provide the above D as a guarantor." At the last time, D stated that "I did not provide a guarantee." If D did not provide a guarantee, it would have borrowed the 10 million won to the defendant. If D did not provide a guarantee, it would not lend the 10 million won to the defendant." At the time of borrowing the 10 million won in this case, the victim's statement is partially consistent with D's above statement.