Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Around September 6, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would receive additional loans by raising the appraisal of the F, G, H, and I land (hereinafter “instant land”) at the victim E’s consulting cost at the D’ office operated by the Defendant in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul, and 1201.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim as the consulting cost, he did not have the intention or ability to obtain additional loans after receiving an appraisal of the land of this case higher than the actual one.

Nevertheless, on September 6, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim at the foreign exchange bank account (Account Number: J) in the name of the Defendant, for consulting expenses, from the victim on September 6, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim, thereby deceiving 10 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A copy of a bankbook of an enterprise bank;

1. Copy of registration certificate of credit business;

1. Application of statutes for land cadastre and certified copy of register;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant and his defense counsel agree to the effect that the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim, but they do not receive money from the victim as a consulting cost to offer additional loans to the instant land.

The argument that it is difficult to believe that the Defendant, a “credit service provider,” borrows money from the victim who is a “credit service provider,” regardless of how the Defendant would obtain additional loans, is not the intent of the victim to obtain additional loans, and there is no reason to allow K to remit money to the Defendant unless the victim intends to obtain additional loans. Therefore, the above argument is rejected.

(1).