If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

The Defendant supplied the victim with approximately KRW 22 million, as collateral, one promissory note with the face value of KRW 50 million of the issuance of the D representative director E by the victim C, but the said promissory note did not receive the said steel payment on March 23, 2010, even though it supplied approximately KRW 22 million to the victim.

On April 26, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “The Defendant would have repaid the said money to the p.m. if he/she lent the said money to the o.m. if he/she borrowed the said money,” by telephone.

However, as seen above, the purport of a promissory note was only to receive the amount equivalent to the said value of the steel bars from the victim who was unaware of the fact that the said promissory note was in default, and there was no intention or ability to repay the said amount from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the Defendant made a false statement as above, and then acquired 13 million won from the victim to the account in the name of the F Co., Ltd. managed by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by C of a witness in the fourth trial record;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to copies of bankbooks and promissory notes;

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

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant is paid 13 million won out of the total value of 50 million won for the issuance of the D representative director E, which is part of the total value of the steel contract, by requiring the defendant to recover the promissory notes with the face value of 50 million won for the issuance of the D representative director E, and the defendant was paid 13 million won out of the total value of the steel contract and it was not borrowed 13 million won by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts of the crime.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant on March 18, 2010.