1. Crimes against victims C;

A. On October 6, 2008, the Defendant stated that “E” office operated by the Defendant located in Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “E”), and that “A victim C shall be paid a full payment within one month if the purchase price of goods is short of seven million won.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 50 million with the Credit Guarantee Fund, and there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim because the business operated was not well-profit.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 7 million from the victim to the new bank account in the name of F on the same day.

B. On October 4, 2011, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant will use the Defendant’s loan of KRW 20 million only for one year, i.e., the Defendant received the Defendant’s loan of KRW 20 million at a new bank forest dong-dong, Incheon Dong-gu.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 50 million with the Credit Guarantee Fund, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if the Defendant received the loan under the name of the victim because the business operated is not well-profit.

Around December 21, 2011, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained a loan of KRW 20 million in the name of the victim and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to that amount.

2. On January 9, 2014, the Defendant committed the crime against Victim G, saying, at the “I” office operated by the Defendant, 101 Dong 4004, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, that the Defendant would repay KRW 10 million by the end of April, if he lends the victim G with a telephone to adjust the urgent tax amount in the name of Party C.

However, at the time, the Defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 130 million, including a debt equivalent to KRW 50 million, to the Credit Guarantee Fund, and had no intent or ability to repay the debt even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim because the business operated was not well-grounded.

The defendant.