The defendant will pay 50 million won to the applicant through fraud.

The defendant and the victim D have become aware of in preparation for the business start-ups E, biff franchise.

On February 2, 2017, the Defendant stated, by telephone, that “the victim should enter the E franchise deposit, borrowed 50 million won as the money is insufficient,” and that “the victim shall borrow money and use it for the end of March, 2017, and pay it by March 31, 2017,” and that “the borrower would repay the borrowed money to the victim by March 31, 2017,” and that “the borrower would repay it by the end of March 31, 2017.”

However, the Defendant did not have any particular income at the time, while the Defendant was liable for loans worth KRW 30 million, and the new construction and rental business in the land located in the office building that was in progress was carried out only with the funds of other investors, and even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party, such as the Defendant’s capital was not invested, there was no intention or ability to repay the money until March 31, 2017.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20,000,000 from the victim on March 2, 2017, and received KRW 30,000,000 from the victim on March 3, 2017 to the new bank account in the name of each Defendant and received KRW 50,000,000 in total from the victim on March 3, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. The process certificate, transfer details, A/H Stockholm message, investigation report (Presentation of Reinforcement Evidence), D/AKakao Stockholm message, franchise agreement, investigation report (transaction details submitted by the victim), investigation report (e.g., age assessment information response), investigation report (Attachment of evidence related to the Defendant’s loan to the victim at the time of the instant case), and investigation report (Attachment of evidence related to the Defendant’s loan to the victim). The Defendant asserts to the effect that “the Defendant had sufficient means to repay the borrowed money to the victim at the time of the instant case, without deceiving the victim, and there was no intentional fraud,” which is duly admitted by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the instant court.