사기
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around December 9, 2008, the summary of the facts charged stated that the Defendant called the victim D at the Defendant’s residence of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 102, and made a false statement to the effect that “I would make a payment at a higher interest rate of 30% per annum if I would lend money to provide a credit counseling service to the E Bank,” and would make a payment without mold until September 8, 201.”
However, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay interest on a timely basis, even if he borrowed money equivalent to KRW 70 million from the victim's debt such as bonds at the time.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim from the victim, remitted the sum of KRW 14.5 million to the Defendant’s E bank account (F) and KRW 24.5 million on February 17, 2009, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.
2. The judgment of the defendant asserts to the effect that he had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation in the intent and ability to repay at the time of the loan of this case. Thus, the following facts acknowledged by the records are as follows: (i) the defendant had a certain amount of income equivalent to KRW 2 million in the E bank at the time of the loan of this case; (ii) the defendant paid an agreed interest on the loan of this case two times on December 9, 2008; (iii) the defendant was urged to receive a loan from the victim as of February 17, 2009 (the victim stated to the effect that he lent the loan of this case from the police at the request of the defendant on February 17, 2009), and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's debt, such as bonds, was KRW 70 million, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had a default of obligation to the defendant at the time of the loan of this case (the credit report on the defendant was submitted by the prosecutor on February 207, 2007).
3. Conclusion, this case.