On April 29, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F that “E” would transfer the name of the person having the right to lease on a deposit basis of the principal contract as security if it lends KRW 20 million to the victim F. The principal would have to be repaid after two months.

However, according to the contract of the above main point, since the person having chonsegwon was the partner of the defendant, he could not transfer the name of the person having chonsegwon to the victim without the consent of G, and there was no intention or ability to pay the money to the victim because the management of the main point was difficult.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10,00,00 from the victim and received KRW 10,00,000 from the Agricultural Cooperative head in the name of H used by the Defendant on the same day. On May 4, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 8,350,00 in cash from the first week in the first week, and acquired KRW 8,50,000 in total from the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of H on May 4, 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and I;

1. Statement F and I of the suspect examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol of suspect examination of I by the prosecution;

1. Statement of F in the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A complaint;

1. Recording record preparation report;

1. A list of transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the counter telephone investigation of witnesses, telephone conversation conversation attachment);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's argument regarding the pertinent provision of the relevant criminal facts, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of imprisonment and the defendant's defense counsel's assertion that the money at the time was borrowed from the victim by I, who worked at the defendant's shop, not the defendant, and that there was no fact that I asked the defendant to directly lend money to the victim in the process of borrowing the money or promised to change the name of the victim and the defense counsel.

Modern, Modern, this Court.