The defendant is a person who operated a 'D' childcare center in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from March 2003 to August 2010.

1. On November 20, 2009, the Defendant against the victim E entered the number system with the Defendant at the time of raising the expenses when the above child-care center operation expenses were insufficient, and the Defendant called the victim, who was in the order of withdrawal of the time when the Defendant entered the time of raising the expenses, to the effect that “if the Plaintiff loans KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant during the period of de facto extension, the Defendant would pay interest of KRW 20,00 per month, and the principal will be paid if the Plaintiff borrowed the extended amount to KRW 10,000,000,000,000 won per month.”

However, at the time, the Defendant was in a bad credit condition, such as being subject to seizure of accounts due to the failure to pay approximately KRW 70,000,000 or more, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, and even after about 5-6 months, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the loan to the victim because the Defendant was unable to receive the said loan due to obligations, etc. to the existing fraternity, even if the Defendant was in the order of withdrawal of the loan from the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as such and obtained 10,000 won from the victim, i.e., the money borrowed from the victim, and acquired it by fraud.

2. Fraud against victim F;

A. The Defendant: 2010

2. Around March, 200, at the Seogwon-dong, Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Plaintiff, who was aware of the need for the above operation expenses of the above child care center, concluded that “If he/she borrowed the money of KRW 5 million for Dong G and H, he/she would receive interest from his/her students in the amount of KRW 150,000,000,000, respectively.”

However, the above G and H did not have requested the defendant to pay money at the time, and G was not the same as the defendant's living, and further, the defendant is a high-amount obligation like the above paragraph 1.