1. On June 7, 2015, the Defendant had no money on the part of the victim B from the French land Seoul (Seoul) to the victim B.

200,000 won was lent by means of false words “to send money by getting out of Ulsan.”

However, in fact, even if there was no regular income at the time, the defendant used it for the repayment of living expenses or debts, so even if he received the money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it.

The Defendant, as above, was delivered KRW 8,298,00 in total on 29 occasions from the time of deceiving the victim and being delivered KRW 200,00 from the place of the damage to December 9 of the same year, from the time on which the victim was delivered to him.

2. On July 8, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the said victim that “A mobile phone value and charge will be paid monthly on the face value of a cell phone in the name of a cell phone.”

However, in fact, even if there was no regular income at the time and there was no income, the Defendant used it for the payment of living expenses or debts. Therefore, even if the Defendant opened and used the mobile phone in the name of the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the part of the written indictment stating that "it was clear that the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay money even if he received money from the injured party," as stated in paragraph (2) of Article 2 of the indictment, is a clerical error in the victim's name, and even if the mobile phone was opened in the victim's name, it did not have the intention or ability to pay mobile phone charges, etc., even if it was corrected without the amendment process, it does not lead to

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and let the victim open the cell phone under the victim's name at that time, and then the victim suffered damage.