On February 2, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F’s studio in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, the Defendant established “H Co., Ltd.” at the victim F’s studio, and conducts landscaping business. When investing in this business, the Defendant paid dividends by calculating 33% per annum every one year, and guaranteeing the principal after the lapse of four years. The above business is no choice but to be done well, and it is intended to set up a collateral security interest as security for the house which has lived in the Republic of Korea to guarantee the principal.”

However, considering that there was no other investor in the above business at the time, and that the time when trees become commercialized takes 3 to 4 years, the Defendant did not have any ability to pay dividends of 33% per annum according to the investment deposit agreement, and there was no intention or ability to set up a collateral security with his house as collateral to guarantee principal.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the Defendant, was obtained from the victim on February 26, 2009, the sum of KRW 200 million, which is KRW 70 million on March 6, 2009, and KRW 130 million on March 6, 2009, and acquired it as investment funds for landscaping business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a letter of certification;

1. Determination on the relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the criminal facts and on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's argument that the defendant and his defense counsel had the ability to pay dividends to the victim every year at the time of entering into an investment agreement with the victim as indicated in the judgment, and that there is no means to conclude that there was a criminal intent to obtain money from the victim since there was no agreement to set up the right to collateral security.

2. The following circumstances, which could be known from the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, are the first time that the victim was prepared to guarantee the old age.