“.....”

However, the defendant did not deliver the goods to the prison, had been able to use the money borrowed from the damaged person to repay the existing debt, and even if he borrowed money from the damaged person due to economic difficulties at the time, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

On September 22, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 40 million won from the victim to the post office account under the name of the Defendant for the purpose of borrowing money, from the time to November 8, 2015, and received 115,800,000 won in total on seven occasions, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table, from November 8, 2015.

2. The financial transaction between the Defendant’s assertion and C arising from the Defendant’s demand of C to repay the loan to D to the Defendant introduced by the Defendant and the Defendant assumed a large amount of interest while paying the loan to the Defendant. The Defendant did not engage in monetary transaction with the delivery of the goods in prison without intent or ability to repay the loan between C and C.

3. In full view of the following circumstances, the defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay money, such as the statement in the list of crimes in the attached Form C, when he/she was transferred money from C, taking into account the following circumstances that can be recognized by the statement in the summary of his/her oral argument on August 17, 2016, the copy of the certificate of process attached to the summary of his/her oral argument and the statement in the statement of monetary transactions (the defendant and the defendant's birth E).

It shall not be readily concluded.

C Around November 3, 2014, lent KRW 30 million to D, who is the seat of the defendant around 2014, but D could not change this, the defendant demanded repayment.