When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On January 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E by posting a phone from the Defendant’s house located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, to the end of January 2013, stating that “The Defendant would pay 10 million won per month interest.”

However, on January 2013, the Defendant had already borrowed money of 32.5 million won or more from Rabman. The Defendant used 90% or more of the monthly salary for the repayment of principal due to a large amount of personal debt during several years, and the said money was expected to be used for the repayment of the existing debt (the so-called “the so-called “prevention of return”). The Defendant was aware of the fact that he could not repay the said money unless he/she borrows money from another person even if he/she borrowed the above money from the damaged person. The said money was likely to be used for the repayment of the existing debt (the so-called “the so-called “the so-called “the so-called prohibition of return”), and was in a situation where he/she could have been able to work at any time due to aggravation of health and the her husband

The Defendant received, from the victim, three million won around January 31, 2013, three million won around February 18, 2013, three million won around February 18, 2013, and 37.6 million won around March 14, 2013 from the Defendant’s corporate bank account (F).

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant (including E statements);

1. A criminal investigation report (a copy of a bankbook, etc.), investigation report (a suspect credit information inquiry);

1. The document of borrowing, the document of submitting a suspect, the document of transaction with the complainant, the document of account transaction with the suspect agricultural bank, and the document of account transaction with the suspect corporate bank [the defendant and the defense counsel received the total amount of KRW 9.76 million from the victim as the time money and the defendant did not have the scope of

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined, the defendant's crime is committed against the victim.