Around November 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would use for several months and pay three-minutes interest if there is a shortage of operating funds due to a lack of money due to the fact that the Defendant was under preparation for opening, although he/she was in the process of accepting the omission in Gangnam, he/she would not be a day for a short time.”

However, in fact, the defendant had no property at the time, and since the defendant's business of the drinking house operated was not proper, it was impossible to pay monthly rent and monthly salary for employees, there was no intention or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed money from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 9,70,000 from the victim on or around the 2th day of the same month in the name of borrowed money from the victim, and acquired it through a passbook (Account Number D) in the name of the Defendant, and acquired it through deception from January 13, 2009, all of which were 7,615,90 won in total over 20 times as shown in the separate crime list from January 13, 2009.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused against the accused (including the C statement section);

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Each investigation report (the submission of a complainant, the counter investigation by witnesses E, and the filing of data on the details of passbook transactions);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusations, statements of foreign exchange transactions, statements of account transactions, notarial deeds, statement of money lending, statement of passbook transactions, and e-mail investigation data;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Among concurrent crimes, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, the payment of KRW 1.2 million to the victim, and the fact that the defendant has no same criminal records.