Around January 2010, the Defendant was urged to pay the Defendant’s personal debt amounting to KRW 80 million, and there was no intention or ability to pay the Defendant’s personal debt amounting to KRW 80,000,000.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim C, received KRW 15 million from the victim three times as follows.

1. On January 2010, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim to the effect that “a bank must pay the cash service in return for the receipt of the said cash service; (b) the amount is necessary; (c) monthly interest is paid; and (d) a promissory note is also issued by the victim on the same day.” (c) the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the victim on the same day.

2. On March 2010, the Defendant deceptioned the victim to the effect that “a bank loan is required to be repaid to the victim,” and received KRW 5 million from the victim on the same day as the loan was borrowed on the same day.”

3. On November 201, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim to the effect that “A loan is required to be repaid to the victim; (b) prior to the loan of KRW 5 million, the Defendant would immediately pay KRW 2,100,000,000 interest on KRW 10,000,000,000,000 that was borrowed before the loan of KRW 5 million to the victim; (c) by the time of retirement on July 31, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 5,00,000 from the victim as the loan borrowed on the same day.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A copy of a deposit certificate;

1. Application of statutes governing details of transactions;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37 and Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act are applicable;