The defendant shall be innocent.

On December 23, 2016, the Defendant applied for a loan to the victim B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) (hereinafter “the Defendant”) who is engaged in the lending business, etc. by accessing the Internet site around December 23, 2016. Since he actually owns the apartment house of the old and Daegu Northern-gu apartment of the apartment of the apartment of the apartment of the Gu, the Defendant borrowed KRW 35 million at the interest rate of 15.2% per annum at the interest rate of 15.2% per annum and repaid the relevant amount in installments by 2020.

The defendant's G bank account (Account Number: I) was remitted to KRW 35 million in the name of a loan on the same day by the victim company that believed that it was true.

However, at the time, the Defendant was in a situation where he would immediately retire from the workplace that he had been going to a contractual position, and the said apartment buildings owned under the name of the Defendant had already been given a loan equivalent to KRW 0,000,000 from H banks, G banks, etc., and had not been given a considerable amount of loan to others or received a considerable amount of loan, and there was a situation where the Defendant should sell the loan to others under the financial condition of the Defendant. Therefore, the said apartment buildings could not be paid at the time of offering the payment for the loan to be received from the victimized company.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the damaged company, thereby deceiving 35 million won as a loan.

Maz.

1. In a case where, in recognition of the Defendant’s credit standing, the injured party anticipated or could have anticipated the risk of delay of repayment or impossibility of repayment, barring special circumstances, such as the Defendant’s false statement of material facts, such as the Defendant’s intent of repayment, legal capacity, transaction terms, etc., which could make a decision as to whether to make a transaction, such as the Defendant’s intent of repayment, change of capacity, and transaction terms, the Defendant was unaware of the victim’s ability to pay, or

In addition, Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1855 Decided June 9, 2016 (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1855, Jun. 9, 2016).