Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

1. Fraud;

A. On January 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around January 7, 2016, at the branch office of D Mart Central Branch Office in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul where the victim B works, the Defendant requires urgent money to the victim.

On January 2016, 2016, a false statement was made that a loan of KRW 2 million would be repaid by the end of the year.

However, it was impossible for the Defendant to obtain a loan from a commercial bank due to the credit rating of eight levels at the time. The amount equivalent to 6 million won for the debt borrowed from the creditor E, the amount equivalent to 10 million won for the number of days borrowed from the creditor, and the amount equivalent to 30 million won for the lending from the lending company. Since the Defendant was thought to borrow money from the victim as a private money for the purpose of gambling or using it for the cost of living, there was no intention or ability to make a change on the date of promise even if he borrowed money from the victim.

As above, the Defendant was issued KRW 2 million in cash withdrawn from the victim by deceiving the victim and accompanying the victim to the said FF withdrawal machine on the same day with the victim.

In addition, from around that time to January 11, 2017, the Defendant received a total of KRW 70,05,605,05 won for all kinds of loans over 20 times, as shown in attached Table 1.

B. On July 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around July 4, 2016, around the victim’s residence near the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Borrowing, the Defendant changed joint and several sureties as the joint and several guarantors need to obtain a loan in the name of the victim; (b) the Defendant borrowed the loan from the lending company to the existing loan.

Walma will resolve the brine in Gwangju within three months.

“A false representation was made.”

However, Defendant 1, as mentioned in the above A, was considerably liable, and was thought to be used as private sports discussions or for the cost of living with money borrowed from the lending company, and thus, Defendant 1 paid the victim’s debt that was previously borrowed as agreed even if the injured party’s joint and several liability for the loan was committed.