On February 2, 2013, at a place where it is difficult to identify the location located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the Defendant called “Around Eunpyeong-gu, the Defendant made a large amount of money by making a credit card tin (such as illegal loans and other acts related to credit cards by lending money to those who need to pay money in cash, which was made up of a fake sales slip)” to the victim C who was known of the Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, and said, “Around February 2013, the Defendant would have to pay with high interest on the loan of KRW 10 million.

However, at the time, the Defendant did not have any specific revenue or property, while he did not have any intent or ability to repay the debt amounting to 150 million won even if he borrowed money from the damaged party, such as bonds with a debt equivalent to 150 million won.

Nevertheless, on February 27, 2013, the Defendant, as seen above, received 10 million won from the injured party on the loan account in the name of a new bank account (Account Number D) under the name of the Defendant and received the total amount of 57 million won from the injured party on seven occasions from around that time to May 30, 2013, as shown in the crime List.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was given KRW 57 million from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the first trial record;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. In light of the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes in the light of the following: (a) the reason for sentencing; or (b) the reason why the defendant’s liability was imposed; or (c) the reason why the damaged person used to prevent the defendant from returning the defendant’s liability; and (d) the fact that no damage was paid at all even though the amount of damage was reasonable, the relevant crime must be sentenced.