The judgment below

On March 29, 2012, the part on fraud is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

(b).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the property owned by the defendant or the mother of the defendant has little value to guarantee, and at the time, the restaurant of the defendant was accumulated because the enemy was unable to operate the restaurant, and thus there is no intent or ability to pay the defendant, the court below acquitted the defendant on the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was in collusion with the parent-friendly D to receive money for the purpose of borrowing money from the victim E.

(1) On October 7, 2011, the Defendant and D concluded that “on the 7th floor of G department stores in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant and D would pay 12 months in 10,000,000 won to the victim, if the Defendant and D lend 10,000,000 won as the money is needed, 3 additional interest shall be paid, and 10,000 won per month shall be paid in 12 months.”

However, the monthly sales of the restaurant operated by the Defendant and D was approximately KRW 78 million, and the operating expenses of the restaurant was at least KRW 10 million per month, and the Defendants did not have any other property, so they did not have any intention or ability to repay even if they received it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant and D received KRW 10 million from the victim who deceivings the victim as above, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of D from tin, that is, the victim believed.

B. On February 2, 2012, the Defendant and D concluded that “If the Defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,000 as the operating funds of the funeral service need to be carried out, the Defendant and D would pay the said victim KRW 10,000,000 for 12 months each month.”

However, even if it is received due to the circumstances described in Paragraph 1, there was no intention or ability to repay.

Nevertheless, the Defendant and D received KRW 10 million from the victim who deceivings the victim as above, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of D from tin, that is, the victim believed.

The defendant and D are different from the victim on March 29, 2012.