On April 25, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at Company C located in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju (Seoul) around April 25, 2016, the Defendant “D. In the future, loans remain to the extent of KRW 20,000,000; (b) provided that loans are provided in four names, the Defendant is thick to repay the loans.

“A false statement” was made.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant did not have any special property, and was in excess of the debt amounting to about 35 million won, and the Defendant was planned to use the money borrowed from the victim for the purpose of repaying the loan, and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if he borrowed the money under the name of the victim.

Nevertheless, on April 28, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 26,50,000 from the lending company located in three places, such as R&C, etc., in the name of the victim, and received a loan from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the transaction statement, loan transaction agreement, agreement on personal credit loan (OK Savings Bank), agreement on credit account (JT-friendly Savings Bank), and credit summary report;

1. The sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the pertinent Article of the Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and the following reasons for the sentencing of the option of punishment (the option of imprisonment with prison labor), shall be determined as ordered in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the age, sex, family relation, family environment, motive and means of the crime; and (b) the motive and means of the crime after the crime.

The favorable circumstances: The defendant is the first offender, and his mistake is divided in depth.

The defendant is in the wife to support his family.

Disadvantageous circumstances: The amount of damage has not yet been fully repaid, and most of them have not been repaid.

In addition, the defendant committed the fraud against the victim who lacks intellectual ability, and the nature of the crime is not good.