1. On June 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) from D in Daegu-gu, Seogu, Daegu-gu, to the victim E, the owner of the building requests the victim E to raise the deposit in operating the restaurant.

If only 10 million won is lent, it is false that it will be repaid within 20 months with funeral services.

However, the fact was that the court was decided bankrupt on June 12, 2012, and there was no intention or ability to repay the debt amounting to about 200 million won even if it was borrowed money from the injured party.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was remitted to the Daegu Bank Account in the name of the Defendant F on the same day from the victim.

2. On July 12, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the above victim that “I wish to take over and operate a restaurant in the factory premises” at the above place, stating that I would have to pay money with the borrowed money first, if I borrowed money.

However, the facts did not have intended to take over and operate a restaurant within the factory, and even if they borrowed money from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to pay the money.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was delivered to the said account from the victim, four million won around July 12, 2012, and five million won around September 13, 2012, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the receipt of loans and details of passbook transactions;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, Articles 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act for the crime of this case for the punishment of concurrent crimes is to acquire money from the victim who is in a position where it is difficult for the defendant to maintain his livelihood due to bathing management by emphasizing the refluence of the crime of this case, and taking into account that the nature of the crime is bad and that the damage has not been restored until now.