The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: D operated by the Defendant on April 5, 201, which is located in Sinpo City C on April 5, 201, the Defendant offered the victim E with the work of art at the Fresh amounting to KRW 100 million at the market price of KRW 20 million as security; the said work will be sold in gold and will be paid 20% of its profits; and the principal will be repaid up to July 4, 201, which is later than three months.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, as seen above, the literary works offered as security were not proven to be genuine, and even if they borrowed money from the injured party, such as bad credit standing, etc. due to failure to repay debts equivalent to KRW 17 million at the time of borrowing, there was no intention or ability to repay the money.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) transferred KRW 18 million to the account in the name of G, the Defendant, who is aware of the same day from the victim; and (c) received KRW 20 million in cash and received KRW 20 million in cash, and acquired it as the loan money.

2. The Defendant’s assertion is that the art works of this case, which the Defendant offered as security for the borrowed money to the victim at the time of borrowing the instant loan (hereinafter “the art works of this case”), are the valuable goods. Even if the art works of this case are the valuable goods, the Defendant provided them as security, trusting and offering them as the valuable goods. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had the Chinese-style one with the market price of KRW 1 billion, and thereafter purchased the instrument with the borrowed money of KRW 300 million. Since it was merely the fact that the Defendant could sufficiently repay the borrowed money when selling each of the above intent, but was unable to sell the borrowed money due to its failure to sell it, the Defendant had the criminal intent to commit fraud.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant was unable to repay the debt to the Saemaul Treasury equivalent to KRW 17 million at the time of borrowing the instant loan, and was bad credit.