Around March 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, stating that “The Defendant would engage in any business other than the middle and high-income business. The Defendant borrowed the business fund due to a shortage of money. I will pay the money two months after the month in which the money was paid.”

However, the Defendant was trying to use the money borrowed from the victim for gambling in a foreign country. Even if he received money from the victim, he did not intend to conduct a business, so he did not have any intent or ability to repay the money that he received after the second month from the victim.

On March 9, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 50 million from the victim, via D’s corporate bank account (E) in the name of D on March 9, 2016, KRW 60 million in the corporate bank account (F) in the name of D on March 31, 2016, and KRW 35.8 million in the name of D on April 8, 2016, respectively, and acquired KRW 145.8 million in the aggregate.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. A certified copy of a notarial deed;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel do not borrow money from the victim for business purposes. The victim is seeking 10% of the principal at the place in which the defendant makes an investment with the proceeds of 10% of the principal. Therefore, the victim asserts that there was no intention of deception.

The following facts are revealed according to the evidence adopted by this court.

① The victims have consistently and specifically stated that they lent money to the Defendant for business purposes from the investigative agency to this court.

② On April 5, 2017, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the victim as KRW 100 million. If the Defendant received money as money for investment, it seems that there is no reason to prepare the notarial deed.

③ Even based on the Defendant’s assertion, deceptions.