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

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant had no particular income other than KRW 2,00,000 from her husband’s monthly income, and there was no intention or ability to repay, even if the Defendant had a debt of KRW 1,00,000,00,000, which occurred in the course of promoting the business of the real estate transport and the convalescent hospital in both weeks (hereinafter “instant land”).

Nevertheless, the Defendant borrowed 16 times from April 2, 2007 to April 7, 2009 the money to be used as the payment of personal debts by the Defendant, etc., but if it is well as the cost of settling the telephone rates or the cost of promoting the project required for the promotion of the de facto administration and the convalescent hospital, the Defendant subsequently borrowed 47,885,00 won from I to receive 47,885,000 won in total as employee, and acquired it by defrauded.

2. The gist of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion was that the defendant actually promoted the business of the real beneficiary and the convalescent hospital, and thus, the defendant had the ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing, the defendant did not specify the purpose of the borrowed money in detail, and the defendant's part of the defendant's repayment of the borrowed money was related to the business, and the defendant's payment of the borrowed money was also related to the business, and since there was no opportunity to employ employees because the dispute between I and others

3. Comprehensively considering the evidence adopted by the court, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed amount, or that the defendant deceivings I with respect to the use of the borrowed amount or the employment of employees, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent of the defendant's defraudation. Rather, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) at the time of borrowing, the defendant had a building permit that the defendant had in the name of her husband to construct the whole part of the land of this case (Evidence 14); and (b)