When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On April 15, 201, the Defendant: (a) lent money to the victim D within a singing room located in Ansan-si, a member B, to the victim D on April 15, 2011; and (b) borrowed money from the victim D.

At present, banks have applied for the day-to-day loan in the name of the company, and if the loan takes place, it is hot to repay immediately.

In addition, it is clear that an individual taxi is not able to receive money because 100 million won is 100 million won, even if he/she is able to drive a private taxi in Ansan.

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have applied for the loan of the sunlight loan to the bank, and there was approximately KRW 110,000,000,000,000 for the Defendant at the time, and even if he had been unable to pay the credit card payment due to a large amount of debt and borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have the intent or ability to pay it.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and caused the victim to transfer KRW 10 million to the Saemaul Bank passbook (H) in the name of the defendant's creditor, G to the defendant's creditor, and transferred KRW 2.7 million to the head of the national bank bank (I) in the above F on the same day.

2. The Defendant, at around 14:00 on April 22, 2011, lent money to the victim D at the office of the sea floor of the law firm where a notary public, who is a member of Ansan-si, who is a member of Ansan-si, lent money to the victim D in the office of the sea floor of the law firm.

Before adding up KRW 13 million, I will write notarial deeds of KRW 25 million and put F into a joint guarantor.

He shall be able to pay the money, and he shall be able to lend the money.

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant suffered approximately KRW 110,00,000 from personal debt, and even if he was unable to borrow money from the victim due to a large amount of personal debt, he did not have the intent or ability to repay it.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 12 million won from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1.