The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On February 2015, the Defendant: (a) was provided with a loan prior to a place where it is not known as a police officer at first time; and (b) the Defendant called, “A loaned KRW 26 million in the name of E and then recovered credit after the month of the loan to B; (c) received the loan in the name of E and delivered the loan to E in the name of E and received the loan in the name of E, thereby allowing B to obtain the loan; and (d) at the request of the Defendant, D sent the victim E the statement as requested by the Defendant.

However, at the time, the Defendant was unable to pay the repayment due to personal rehabilitation due to the absence of money in the absence of credit rating, and there was no fixed income due to the winners of the restaurant operated. However, even if the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 26 million in the name of the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan after the month of the loan.

Nevertheless, on February 13, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim borrow 26 million won from the above lending company in the name of the victim, and then received 26 million won from the victim in the name of the post office account (Account Number F) in the name of the Defendant.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant alleged that he/she repaid 18 million won of the previous guarantee loan that he/she is the principal debtor and the victim and provided to D with the certificate of full payment as requested by the victim with the loan of 26 million won from the victim. However, the Defendant alleged that he/she did not have any criminal intent of deceiving the victim to receive a loan of 26 million won in the name of the victim through D through the instant facts charged, such as the instant facts charged, or of taking the above money by fraud.

The following is that the defendant served as the sender in the middle of deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case.