The defendant shall pay B, who is an applicant for compensation, KRW 36,50,000,00.

3.2

On October 2013, the Defendant stated that, within the victim B’s car parked near the “D” company located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant was unable to obtain loans from the victim, “The mother of the Defendant was in need of operating expenses, but his work experience was not good,” and that the Defendant would receive loans from the lending company as it is possible to make loans under the victim’s name, the Defendant is responsible for the interest, and the Defendant would receive loans under the Defendant’s name and repay the full amount after three months of work experience.”

However, at the time, the defendant was used as a loan to a loan company for living expenses due to the lack of income, and the financial obligation was 18 million won, and the credit card price was 9 million won and the interest on the loan was 3.3 million won, so even if the victim received the loan, there was no intention or ability to receive the loan under the name of the defendant after three months.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deceiving the victim as above and caused the victim to borrow KRW 4,45 million in total, including KRW 5 million, KRW 5 million, KRW 18,500,000, KRW 2000,000,000 in SBI Savings Bank on November 1, 200 of the same month, and KRW 3,00,000,000 in total, from the national bank account in the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 3,00,000 from the victim to the Defendant’s account on October 30, 2013, KRW 18,50,000 in total, and KRW 36,50,000 in the amount of KRW 18,50,00 in the name of the Defendant. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24813, Nov. 1, 2013>

The facts charged indicate that “the sum of 4,50,000 won was loaned and then 39,50,000 won was delivered among them,” but in particular, this part of the facts charged is corrected and supplemented as it is recognized by the statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol as of July 14, 2014 and the statement of deposit transaction statement against the defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police officer against the defendant.