On December 3, 2013, at around 15:00, the Defendant stated that the victim E of friendly job offering is short of marriage funds, but if only 10 million won is lent, the Defendant would give marriage awareness and pay back immediately with the helper.

However, even though the Defendant was engaged in the distribution business under F in the name of F at the time, there was a situation in which only the Defendant was liable for the debt without any clear profits. Although there was real estate in the name of the Defendant, there was already the establishment of several million won collateral security, there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if he borrowed money from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million immediately from the victim to the passbook in the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 190 million from the time on June 3, 2014, a total of KRW 190,000,000,000 from the time to June 3, 2014, as stated in the attached crime list, and acquired it

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Details of transactions and notarial deeds;

1. The loan certificate;

1. A certified copy of the register;

1. A credit information inquiry statement;

1. Each investigation report (in addition to facts of crime, confirmation of facts of crime and details of repayment) and defense counsel shall deny the criminal intent of fraud;

However, as acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant continued to receive money from the victim without complying with the promise or the due date at the time when the defendant borrowed money or prepared a loan certificate and a notarial deed, and the defendant denies the criminal intent of the crime of acquiring money by fraud, and did not properly state the exact details and purpose of borrowing money from the victim. Even according to the defendant's statement, even if the defendant's statement was based on the defendant's own opinion, the defendant was liable to pay money to other business partners at the time, and the defendant's apartment was already subject to the right to collateral security.