If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On March 28, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay 110,000 won per month to the principal and interest at the 31,000,000 won loaned from the said company at the Daegu Branch Office of 10th, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, to the interest rate of 18.90% per annum from April 25, 2012 to March 25, 2015 for the period from March 25, 2012.

However, at the time of this fact, the Defendant has no particular income other than the monthly wage of KRW 3 million, but the Defendant has a debt of KRW 15 million borrowed from the workplace Dong F, and KRW 80 million borrowed from the bank account, and the above bank account obligation was repaid for the principal and interest of KRW 2.1 million per month for the above bank account obligation, and there was no intention or ability to repay the principal and interest of KRW 1.1 million per month even if the Defendant borrowed from the victim.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 31 million won as a loan from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statements in the trial records once again;

1. A written statement of the G production;

1. A complaint;

1. A written application for the surrender of a contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the principal and interest;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant alleged that he did not make a false statement in the course of lending, and paid the principal and interest of loan four times every month. After that, the defendant's financial standing has deteriorated and failed to repay the borrowed amount, but did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed amount to the victim from the beginning.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, the Defendant’s property, other than KRW 3 million per month, received in the H company at the time of the instant case, in addition to the KRW 3 million per month.