1. On September 21, 2012, the criminal defendant against the victim C, D, and E said, at the coffee shop located in Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “The victim C, D, and E manage the (ju) capital, while importing the clothing and then delivering it to E, i.e., E., a trade company. When exercising the garment special board, the profits remain two allocation, but the garment income remains insufficient. If the garment special board was lent KRW 45 million, the defendant would borrow money up to December 2012.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was in bad faith with a debt of 180 million won or more in the bank account, and the sales price of clothes was used for personal debt repayment, etc., and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to return twice the money borrowed from the victims, such as the promise, even if the above money was received from the victims.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims, received 30,908,336 won in the name of the national bank plaza Dong branch designated by the Defendant for the same day from the victims, and received 14,091,664 won in total from the Agricultural Cooperatives under the name of F Co., Ltd. and acquired 44,50,000 won in total from the victims.

2. Around October 1, 2012, the Defendant against the victim G made a false statement to the victim G in the J around the I Station located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H that “A business is carrying on the business of importing clothes from South and North East Asia to supply them to the large discount in Korea. If the business funds are to be lent to the Republic of Korea due to the shortage of the business funds, the Defendant would pay two times after the two months.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was in a bad credit position with a monetary obligation of 180 million won or more, and the Defendant used money received from the victim to purchase clothes in Korea, not in a foreign country, and the sales proceeds are used for personal debt repayment, etc., and thus, the Defendant borrowed the money from the victims as agreed even if they were to receive the above money from the victims.