On March 23, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for embezzlement and two years of suspended execution at the Sungnam Branch of Suwon District Court on August 4, 2012, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 4, 2012.

While the Defendant was operating D(State), an enterprise such as construction and landscaping works, etc. from January 2008 to August 2012, 201, he was introduced with the Victim F residing in Japan through land E around November 2010, and was aware that the victim had a substantial financial capacity, and was aware of the fact that the victim had a substantial financial capacity, and was able to defraud the money under the pretext of borrowing.

On March 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) called the victim’s vehicle located in the Defendant’s office, etc. located in Seonam-si, Hannam-si, 801, saying, “The Defendant was given orders for road railing replacement works, but the cost of construction, such as material cost, etc., changed to loan money; (b) the payment of construction cost will be made after about 20 days thereafter; (c) the Defendant was granted USD 90,00 from the victim’s vehicle within the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the Incheon Party’s passenger vehicle located in Jung-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.”

In addition, on April 12, 201, the Defendant, at the time of the victim’s house located in Dondo D in Japan on April 201, saying, “The amount of money is needed to be paid to the Corporation” to the victim “on the part of the victim’s house located in Dondo D, and on the part of 25,000,000 won, additional loaned to KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000 from the Sinnam-si.” The Defendant received KRW 200,000 from the victim on April 12, 2011.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have ordered road railing construction from Hanam-si, and there was no construction cost to be paid, and even if the debt amount equivalent to 500 million won has been accumulated due to the poor business operation of the company, there was no intention or ability to repay it even if he borrowed money from the victim.

As such, the Defendant deceivings the victim, and thereby, 250 million US dollars and 90 million US dollars from the victim.