If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On February 2, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on April 3, 2012 by imprisonment with prison labor and six months for fraud, etc. by the District Court 201No805, which became final and conclusive on April 3, 2012.

On June 21, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If the Defendant borrowed 10 million won as it is necessary to operate a company, he would repay the two-month interest after the second month.”

However, in fact, it was difficult for the company to operate the business to the extent that the office rent is overdue, and there was no personal property of the defendant, even if the victim borrowed money from the victim as above, there was no intention or ability to repay the money on the due date for repayment.

The Defendant received 10 million won in cash from the victim in the name of the borrowed money from the seat.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witness E;

1. An interrogation protocol of F by prosecution;

1. Investigation reports (in the course of pending trials A in the same kind of trials, filing of records of the case);

1. Previous records: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accused's legal statement, criminal records, and investigation reports (in the case of pending trial in the same kind of trial as a suspect A, filing of records

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine: Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Concurrent treatment: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. At the time of borrowing, the Defendant was guilty of Article 70 and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act; ① at the time of borrowing, the Defendant lent the above money to the Defendant in reliance on G’s self-sufficiency; ② the building was leased on deposit 40 million won and monthly rent 2.2 million won; ③ the office’s house was owned with property equivalent to KRW 50 million; ③ the office’s house was partially repaid and did not have any intent or ability to repay the interest.

However, the following circumstances revealed in the above evidence, i.e., the victim's guarantee to the defendant.