However, in fact, the defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the above money even if he borrowed such money from the bank.

Around July 3, 2006, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim’s national bank account in the name of the Defendant.

2. Determination:

A. First, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the Defendant did not directly request the victim to lend KRW 20 million to the victim.

The defendant requested D to lend KRW 20 million to D by telephone, and again delivered it to the victim that D was next to it, and the victim wired it to the defendant, and there is a possibility that D distorted or distorted the will of the defendant in the course of communication.

Because of this, there are many parts that are inconsistent between D and victim's statements, and as alleged by the defendant, the defendant is likely to be aware that D is to lend money.

B. In the facts charged, “The Defendant deposited an amount equivalent to KRW 70-8 billion with the bank that received a request for lending money,” but the partners did not find it because they did not provide payment suspension. In order to find the said money, the part that “it is insufficient to obtain a certificate of balance of the bank and submit it to the bank” alone is difficult to obtain payment even by itself.

The seizure means a seizure in which partners are suspended from payment.