On April 29, 2013, the Defendants issued and lent a promissory note that requires the original business fund to the victim G at the store of the Defendants of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DD market B, No. 4176, and made a false statement to the effect that the Defendants would make a settlement on the payment date of the promissory note.

However, in fact, since around 2011, the Defendants were unable to operate their business, and the amount of KRW 100 million was incurred each month, and the Defendants are liable for the debt amounting to KRW 1 billion. The apartment owned by the Defendants is already established with the mortgage amounting to KRW 779 million with the maximum amount of the claims, and there was no particular collateral value, and thus there was no intention or ability to pay the amount of the promissory note as agreed even if they were to use the promissory note from the victims.

The Defendants, as such, deceiving the victim and used a copy of the Promissory Notes with a face value of KRW 15 million from the victim, namely, the victim.

From that time to December 10, 2013, the Defendants received and used a promissory note of KRW 190,000,000 from the injured party in total at least 12 times in the same manner as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Form 1.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to attract the victim to receive the goods.

Judgment

1. The Defendants’ assertion that Defendant B borrowed a promissory note for a long time from G was merely a fact that G did not deceiving G because G knew of its economic situation, and that the payment of a promissory note was not possible since it was difficult for G to operate its business after the borrowing of the promissory note from G. Defendant A did not take part in the above borrowing of the promissory note.

2. Determination

A. First, Defendant A is given a delivery of promissory notes from G as described in the facts charged.