In July 2016, the Defendant called the victim E within D located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan, and "in order to solve the amount of KRW 17 million borrowed by the joint and several surety previously, 100 million is necessary.

If a loan is made with a loan of KRW 100 million, the interest and principal will be responsible and repaid.

“.....”

However, at that time, the Defendant was liable for a total amount of KRW 30 million, including loans, and there was no certain revenue or property, and there was an idea to use the money borrowed from the victim as the Internet gambling fund and personal living expenses, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to repay it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received KRW 90 million from the victim on July 28, 2016; (c) KRW 500,000 from the victim; (d) KRW 500,000 on August 9, 2016; and (e) KRW 96.5 million on August 13, 2016 from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant as a loan; and (e) received KRW 16.5 million in total from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Part of the second police interrogation protocol against the accused during the interrogation of the suspect, or part of the police statement against E;

1. Complaint;

1. Inquiry into details of savings deposit transactions and a detailed statement of each deposit transaction;

1. Application of text-based statutes;

1. The relevant legal provision on criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act on the selection of punishment (conformative of the punishment), the reason for sentencing of sentence of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] [the grounds for sentencing of sentence] general fraud [the scope of punishment]] where serious damage is caused to the victim (one to two years and six months] [the victim]], the scope of sentencing comparison between punishment and recommendation: One year to two years and six months [the decision of sentence] is advantageous to the defendant's perception of and against his/her own crime.

However, on the other hand, even though the amount of damage is not a large amount, the damage was not recovered properly, and the defendant raised the money that he received from the injured party through gambling on the Internet.

In particular, the defendant's crime is committed.