The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Around June 201, the summary of the facts charged stated that, within the vehicle of the Defendant on the street in front of the Defendant in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “A loaning KRW 100 million to the victim E in the future, the Defendant returned the name of F restaurant if he/she leased KRW 100 million to him/her and borrowed KRW 50 million as security, and received an additional loan as security and repaid the apartment owned by him/her until September 5, 201.”

However, in fact, in order to receive the F restaurant operation right in excess of the amount of KRW 134 million, it is necessary for the Defendant to take over the F restaurant operation right, but at the time, it is unclear whether the Defendant would be able to receive the additional loan as collateral because of the credit card payment, bank loan interest, etc. with excessive debts from the victim, with the exception of the above KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 from the victim, and it is not possible to receive the loan from the victim as collateral, even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000,000 from the victim, it is not possible to obtain the loan as collateral. At the time, the apartment owned by the Defendant reaches about 70% of the collateral ratio, and the price drops in order to extend the repayment period of the existing loan on July 21, 201, it is well known that the Defendant could not receive the said additional loan prior to receiving the money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as such and acquired 100 million won from the victim on August 10, 201.

2. Determination:

A. In a case where a sufficient security was provided while borrowing money from the legal doctrine, it cannot be deemed that there was no intent or ability to repay the borrowed money, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 84Do231 delivered on March 27, 1984, etc.). B.

Judgment

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the records, the Defendant decided to borrow KRW 100 million from the victim, and did not repay that up to September 5, 201.