Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be forfeited from the accused.

The defendant of "2018 Highest 1832" is a military motive in which victims B and C together with noncommissioned Officers' lives.

1. On June 2016, the Defendant committed the crime related to the joint and several liability obligations, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would receive money from the victim due to credit card damages, etc.” at the E executives accommodation located in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun, the Defendant would have to pay the money to the victim. The Defendant manages the savings passbook in monthly pay received from the Gun. The Defendant would have to pay the installment savings after the maturity.”

However, in fact, at the time, the Defendant did not pay the debt amounting to KRW 10 million in total due to Internet gambling and credit card debt, etc., and the monthly payment by noncommissioned Officer was difficult to cope with the debt. The Defendant did not have any particular property or installment savings otherwise held. Therefore, even if the Defendant was liable for the joint and several liability to the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the debt amount guaranteed by the victim according to the agreement.

Ultimately, the Defendant deceiving the victim as above, and took out a loan of KRW 6 million in total from two loan companies, such as “F” and “G,” etc. around the 27th of the same month, and had the victim jointly and severally guarantee the Defendant’s obligation to pay such loans, thereby having the victim obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount of the guaranteed obligation.

2. On July 2016, the Defendant: “Around the same place as indicated in paragraph 1, the Defendant provided that “if he/she is unable to obtain a loan by means of a loan in the name of aner, he/she shall guarantee the loan and pay the loan even if he/she fails to pay the installment savings when he/she lends the loan, including the amount of debt KRW 6 million.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any installment savings held in an economically difficult situation, such as the statement in Paragraph 1. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay it.

In the end, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and is against the victim.