The Defendant knew that he would offer the forest land owned by B as security and borrow KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000,000,000, not the Defendant had been operating a factory at the time and had no intention or ability to lend the rent of the building of the factory to KRW 30,000,000,00, not the Defendant had been operating the factory at the time, and instead, tried to provide the said forest land as security for his own obligation.

Around May 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “A factory operation may resume the factory operation by operating a factory to make himself/herself from a person, while operating a factory in the vicinity of the river basin located in the Sinsan-si.” The Defendant concluded that “A lessee may resume the factory operation by operating a factory to the extent of one month, which would lend KRW 30 million by operating the factory to the extent of one month.”

On June 15, 2012, the Defendant had the victim set up a collateral security right with a maximum debt amount of KRW 40 million, out of the amount of unpaid deposit of KRW 30 million and the rent of KRW 30 million in the office of a certified judicial scrivener in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which is located in Suwon-si, the Defendant established a collateral security right with a maximum debt amount of KRW 1/6,000,000,000 in the amount of 3342 square meters in Incheon E

Accordingly, the defendant had taken advantage of property equivalent to the maximum debt amount by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Each police statement (B, F, and G);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of registration;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the choice of imprisonment [the scope of recommending punishment] The basic area (6-100 million won or less) of category 1 (6-100 million won or less) of the Criminal Act [the decision of sentencing] / [the defendant's decision of sentencing] is not suitable to the circumstances after the crime is committed because his/her whereabouts is unknown, and is not recovered from damage due to his/her unknown whereabouts, the defendant has a lot of criminal records for the same kind