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

At around 16:00 on January 31, 2019, the Defendant tried to invest the victim B in the project to train the unforeseeable underground funds of the State because C has been engaged in construction business at D while finding a place to make investment. C with interest rate of KRW 10 billion, and if C files an application for corporate funds with the State after creating a passbook, 70% of the amount of national underground funds that have been unrealised in the group of accounts is activated, and 50,000 won is divided into the head of the Tong and the related parties. The Defendant said that “if the funding is successful by investing in the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 won, it will return the principal amount to KRW 50,000 per week, and if the failure, it will return the amount to KRW 50,000 per week until February 15, 2019.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not know and contact with C, and did not know at the time that he did not receive any income from the victim and thought to use it as personal expenses, etc., and did not know specific methods to revitalize national underground funds, so there was no intention or ability to return KRW 10 billion as promised to the victim, or KRW 50 million.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was issued a cashier’s check equivalent to KRW 50,00 from the victim’s seat under the pretext of investment.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police concerning B's legal statement;

1. Cash custody certificate;

1. Application of the laws and regulations on the Kakao Stockholm dialogue, the Kakao Stockholm dialogue, and the Kakao Stockholm dialogue.

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the order of provisional payment is that the amount of damage in this case is highly likely to be subject to criticism on a large amount, and the nature of the crime is not good in terms of the content of

On the other hand, the defendant is a first offender.