The defendant shall be innocent.

Around September 11, 2016, the Defendant concluded that, “In the event that 100,000 U.S. dollars are sold or sold, she would pay up to September 21, 2016 after selling or selling shares that return to Korea if she borrowed USD 100,000 from Korea, she would pay up until September 21, 2016,” and that, “If she additionally lends USD 100,000 to her, she would pay off all by September 21, 2016” through D (one-person E) on the following day.

However, at the time of borrowing money, the Defendant did not have any other property, and there was no intention or ability to repay money until September 21, 2016, even if it borrowed money from a casino established in the above hotel.

Nevertheless, on September 11, 2016, the Defendant, who belongs to the Defendant, from the victim, for the purpose of borrowing from the seat to the lender.

9. Along with 12. 2 times, USD 200,000 was issued.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Judgment

1. On September 11, 2016, the Defendant merely borrowed USD 100,000 ($ 85,000,000,000, which actually limits interest; hereinafter the same shall apply) from the victim and on the following day.

9.12. There was no further loan from the victim of USD 100,000 ($ 85,000 which actually limits the interest of the vessel; hereinafter the same shall apply).

The above USD 100,000 was also lent by the victim with knowledge that the defendant would use it for gambling, and there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged.

2. The amount borrowed by the Defendant as of September 11, 2016, as stated in the facts charged by the Defendant; and

9. 12. We examine whether the sum of USD 100,000 each is 20,000 on two occasions from the victim.

The evidence consistent with this, there are the investigative agencies and legal statements of victims C (hereinafter referred to as "victims") and E (D, hereinafter the same shall apply) and criminal investigation reports (Submission of data, etc.).

(b).