It made a false statement to the effect that it would preserve the profit in advance and make the notarial deed to be prepared without making a harsh profits.

However, even if the defendant received money from the injured party, he did not intend to purchase the insurance products of B Co., Ltd.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 127,00,000 won from the damaged person to the F bank account (G) in the name of the Defendant, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant receives KRW 127,00,000 from the victim as the insurance premium of the B Co., Ltd.

It is insufficient to recognize that false statements have been made, and there is no other evidence to recognize them.

A. On December 3, 2014, the victim paid the above KRW 127,000,000 to the Defendant.

At H, at the same day, the Defendant and the victim prepared a fair certificate of monetary consumption lending and borrowing contract with the effect that the Defendant borrowed 127,000,000 won from the victim on December 2, 2015, setting the interest rate of 2.1% per month and the due date of repayment on December 2, 2015.

In general, it is not common to draw up such a fair certificate with an insurance broker when he purchases insurance products.

Rather, the defendant's assertion that the above money was borrowed or invested from the injured party and the fair certificate was prepared is more consistent with the rule of experience.

B. The monthly interest rate of 2.1% stated in the above process deed is excessive higher than the ordinary interest rate, and in particular, the injured party was subscribed.