Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

1. On November 3, 2015, the Defendant, on November 3, 2015, false statement that “Around November 3, 2015, the Defendant would receive money from the victim B, namely, “A person who operates the strawba, who intends to operate the strawba, and borrowed money to use the strawa. It would receive money from a person who operates the strawa, and would receive money.”

However, the Defendant did not receive money from the Defendant, and the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay money even if he/she borrowed money from the victim without any property.

The defendant, in this respect, remitted 5 million won from the victim to C's account in the same day to the victim's name.

2. On November 26, 2015, the Defendant, on November 26, 2015, concluded that “Around November 26, 2015, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million to be used as the operating fund of the head of the head of the head of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, he/she would complete payment after 10 days. That he/she would receive money from she, thus he/she would receive the said money.”

However, the Defendant did not receive money from the Defendant, and the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay money even if he/she borrowed money from the victim without any property.

The defendant acquired 8.8 million won from the victim to the single bank account in the name of the defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements concerning B and D;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant alleged that he did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of deceiving the victim.

2. In full view of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the following circumstances are also recognized as the Defendant’s deception and the Defendant’s deception at least dolusation.

In other words, the Defendant promised.