The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The facts charged in the instant case constituted the so-called “loan fraud” or “loan fraud.”

The facts charged concerning the detailed method of deception, that is, the defendant's explanation of the source of borrowed money that the defendant stated to the complainant are changed to the middle of the trial. The final facts charged are as follows.

From 2010 to 2010, the Defendant was aware of the relationship between the complainant B (hereinafter “Appellant”) and the neighbor.

1. On November 3, 2017, the defrauded through deception: (a) around November 3, 2017, the third Deputy Director of the Operation of the Complainant-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) made a false statement to the complainant, stating that “Around November 3, 2017, the Defendant, who acquired funds by deception, borrowed KRW 1,500,000,000,000,000,000 won

However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt of approximately KRW 120 million due to bonds, bank and loan companies, goods, and construction cost, etc. while engaging in active fish distribution business around 2017. The Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the income even if he/she borrowed the above money from the complainant due to the consumption of almost daily expenses.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the complainant, received 1.5 million won from the complainant to the I Association account (C) in the name of the accused on the same day.

2. On January 17, 2018, the defrauded of the borrowed money, on the same place as before and after January 17, 2018, the Defendant concluded a false statement that “I would end the construction work if I would lend money to the complainant at the construction site, because I would be urgently required to pay money,” and that “I would necessarily pay money by January 31, 2018.”

However, as seen in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant had been in excess of the obligation to repay the above money from the complainants, even if he borrowed the said money, there was no intention or ability to repay it, and there was no intention or ability to complete the work.

The Defendant is the victim as above.