The Defendant had worked as the president at the “C” amusement business establishment located in Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

person is a person.

1. On February 4, 2015, the Defendant committed the crime: (a) around February 4, 2015, at the said entertainment establishment located in GYY-gu, Young-si; and (b) to the victim D (n) who is an employee of the said establishment, “the number of days of age 24.”

The 300,000 won per 1 million won interest is paid to 300,000 won per 1 million won.

The interest rate of KRW 20 million shall be 30% on the face of each week by making the number of days of each week, and it shall be refunded as KRW 50 million on August 2015.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the defendant thought that he will receive money from the injured party to use it as a personal living expense, and there was no intention and ability to return the above money.

Nevertheless, the defendant made such a false statement to the victim and used it by the victim.

It received KRW 20 million from the national bank account in the name of E to the bank account in the name of E.

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

2. On March 25, 2015, the Defendant committed the crime at the same place as set forth in Paragraph 1 of March 25, 2015, and the victim’s “it is insufficient to cover KRW 3.8 million for the Defendant to attempt to set a new place of business.”

It shall be repaid within one week from the loan of money.

In addition, as interest group, friendly-gu is an interest-oriented vehicle, and it is expected that it is a quasi-contributed vehicle.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, since the defendant was economically difficult to borrow money from the damaged party, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to change it or to reduce the lurged vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 3.8 million won from the victim, to the national bank account under the name of E.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers against the accused (two times);

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. The details of passbook transactions, and the Stockholm content law applied 1.