On December 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) at the residence of the Defendant of the Youngdong-gu Btel C, Youngdong-gu, Youngdong-si; (b) at the time of the Defendant’s operation of the E Company, the Defendant applied for a loan of KRW 500 million to the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund as security for manufacturing machinery equivalent to KRW 2 billion in the company; (c) around the end of December 2018 or on January 2019, the Defendant received a loan of KRW 500 million from the Seocho-gu, Youngdong-gu, Seoul; and (d) made a false loan to KRW 20 million.

However, in fact, the defendant did not request the Korea Technology Finance Corporation to grant a loan, so even if he borrowed the above money from the victim, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay it.

On December 2018, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, decided to convert the amount of KRW 20 million out of KRW 35.8 million of the victim’s funds entrusted to the Defendant in consultation with the victim, and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the criminal defendant's partial statement, investigation report (E Staff telephone conversations) on D's legal statement, and the contents of Kakao Stockholm conversation;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and reasons for sentencing under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act of the option of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The scope of recommendation [decision of types] according to the sentencing guidelines and there is no person who is less than KRW 100 million [the category 1] (the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] and the basic area of recommendation [the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range], six months to one year and six months; and

2. Considering the following circumstances: (a) the crime accompanied by affirmative deception in the determination of the sentence of punishment; (b) the amount of damage was not small; (c) the amount of damage was not repaid; and (d) the amount of damage was not repaid to the victim by making a false statement even after the crime was committed; and (c) the amount of cost of KRW 4.5 million out of the amount of damage was repaid; and (d) the fact that there was no same criminal record or

The age, social living relationship, criminal records, and crimes of defendants.