Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding six million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On November 10, 2010, the Defendant, while making telephone conversations with the victim D in the C Office at the time of permanent stay on or around November 10, 2010, had the victim’s wife E through the victim’s wife, and recognized the part of the facts charged in this case as above without changing the indictment and there is no concern that the Defendant may give a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’

In the transaction office, “The two million won promissory note has been received from the transaction office with the value of the goods, and there is no money to be used in cash in the cash of the party. If the bank borrows money, it makes a false statement to the effect that the bill is discounted by 2 million won per week and the remaining 18 million won is changed.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to pay promissory notes to the victim.

As above, the Defendant deceivings the victim and received 18 million won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of F, the Defendant’s wife, under the pretext of the discount of bills on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part concerning D's statement of the second police interrogation protocol against the defendant

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. Each investigation report (one right, 27, 61 pages of investigation records);

1. Each written statement G and E [the Defendant does not borrow money on the condition that a bill is given, but the statement related to D, E, and G is very specific (the Defendant, to give a promissory note to the victim, was made in writing at the victim's residence.

In addition, the defendant had already left a promissory note because of why the promissory note is not written or why the promissory note was written.

(1) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the above statements, and misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the above statements, i.e., the payment period and interest rate agreed upon, etc., are consistent with the circumstances at the time when a promissory note was issued by the defendant at par value of 60,000,000,000.

1. Criminal facts;