Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

[2016 High 406] The Defendant is a person who is engaged in daily labor.

On April 3, 2013, when the Defendant applied for a loan to the Savings Bank in Korea, the Defendant entered into a contract for a workplace-based credit loan with the terms of 3 million won, 36 months, 38.9% of the loans, and 142,410 won of the principal and interest on the 15th day of each month.

However, even if the defendant entered into a loan contract with the victim as above, he did not have the intent and ability to repay it as agreed.

As above, the Defendant acquired 3 million won from the injured party with the delivery of 3 million won from the false loan agreement.

[2016 High 409]

1. On May 3, 2013, the Defendant called the victim B to “construction business,” and did not pay any wage to the victim B.

In order to obtain a loan, N. L. L. L. L. D. said that L. L. L. D. will pay back the money that it received as wages from the company.

However, at the time, the Defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the loan normally even if he was given the loan as a loan guarantee by the victim because the Defendant had a considerable amount of 25 million won, and there was no circumstance that he could receive wage of 11 million won.

On May 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained a loan guarantee from the victim; and (c) obtained a loan of KRW 5 million from the Aju Savings Bank on May 8, 2013; (d) KRW 3 million from the Raf on the same day; and (e) obtained a loan of KRW 11 million from the Raf on the same day; and (c) did not change it; and (d) thereby, (e) obtained a pecuniary benefit equivalent to the same amount by having the victim bear the obligation of guarantee, such as the interest on the loan.

2. On May 28, 2013, the Defendant called the victim B by phoneing it to the victim B, and saying, “The Defendant would receive the loan in the four names as wages fall short of the wage, and then would make the loan in a lump sum with the amount that NA had started to guarantee and the amount that NA had started to be arranged in a lump sum.”

However, the defendant borrowed money from the victim.