If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On May 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would repay money to the victim D by June 15, 2016, if he/she lent money,” at the C Agricultural Partnership Office in Jinjin-gun B.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim according to the promise, such as that the Defendant bears a large number of obligations at the time, has no particular property, and has used most of revenues as gambling funds.

The Defendant deceptioned the victim as such and received KRW 20,50,000 from the victim as a loan, around that time.

Summary of Evidence

Witness

D Application of each applicable investigation reporting statute to the legal statement of D

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant, at the time of borrowing money from the victim, had an intention or ability to repay the money, since he operated the Chinese house and received a considerable amount of income.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court: (i) around the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant had already been using approximately KRW 100 million loans from E companies, F associations, G banks, etc.; (ii) thereafter, the credit rating drops due to the decline in credit card bills, cash services, etc., and delayed payment of various credit card bills, cash loans, etc. since the mid-2016; (iii) around February 2017, the Defendant was operating a restaurant at the lowest level; and (iv) the total sales in 2015 were approximately KRW 18 million, while the Defendant took advantage of gambling since 2009, and even according to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant was operating a restaurant at the lowest level.