On September 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around September 23, 2015, in the mutual infinite restaurant near the exit No. 8 station of Sadong subway No. 2, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (b) around September 23, 2015, “The Victim C is conducting funeral services for 20 years in the Southern main market; (c) it is urgently needed to purchase and sell dumping goods; and (d) the Defendant borrowed KRW 6 million and paid the principal and interest of KRW 6.7 million by combining the interest and interest of around October 3, 200.

“Falsely speaking, the Plaintiff received KRW 6 million from the victim’s bank account in the name of the Defendant, from the time on November 8, 2015, and agreed to pay high-amount interest on a total of eight occasions in the short period, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from the time on which he/she received money from the victim, and received KRW 39,00,000 as borrowed money as necessary for the purchase fund of dumped goods, the purchase fund of liquid interest, the purchase fund of wooden interest, and the purchase fund of both ends.

However, the Defendant was not a funeral, and the Defendant closed the restaurant operated around October 2015, and was making a loan to the Defendant by lending money from the neighboring neighbors. However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money, even if he borrowed money from the damaged party as well as the property to be imported, and thus, the Defendant was prevented from returning an urgent debt, such as the restaurant customer’s price and the container rent, from the damaged party, or re-drawed with the interest-based interest-based cash borrowed from the damaged party at the same time.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and received a delivery of the amount equivalent to KRW 39,00,000 (i.e.,, the Defendant, even if the Defendant paid a reasonable amount to the victim, was not paid on the date of the promise, and was the mother and child amount for principal, and the Defendant appears to have not paid the amount additionally up to two years after the instant case. In light of the circumstances, the intent of the fraud is to be considered to have been committed.