1. On February 22, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, within the Seongbuk-gu Daegu Bank Co., Ltd., Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 10-dong, stating that “The victim C is a public works site other than his/her family and the money falls short of 15 million won. If he/she lends money, the amount of the construction will accrue at the end of September, and he/she will be repaid until the end of October.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had to pay KRW 18 million to financial institutions as well as KRW 20 million, and the Defendant had to pay KRW 2 million monthly interest, and there was no intention or ability to pay the same even if she borrowed money from the victim because she was willing to repay other debts with cash.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 15 million won from the victim to the Defendant’s account under the pretext of borrowing money.

2. On March 20, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim by the said method at the said place; and (b) received from the victim a remittance of KRW 12 million to the Defendant’s account under the pretext of borrowing money.

3. On April 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim by the said method at the said place; and (b) received KRW 5 million from the victim to the Defendant’s account under the pretext of borrowing money.

4. On July 31, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim by the said method at the said place; and (b) received KRW 3 million from the victim to the Defendant’s account under the pretext of borrowing money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (includingC statements);

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. There are extenuating circumstances against the Defendant, including the following: (a) the relevant provision of criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment (a) the reason for sentencing of the Defendant’s fraudulent act in this case cannot be deemed to have been less than KRW 35 million; and (b) the fact that the damage was not completely recovered.