Around July 2009, the Defendant stated that “Around July 2009, the Defendant secured Japan’s low-priced goods from an existing customer and confirmed goods.” The Defendant stated that “B would send the goods immediately on the face of the money,” and that “A victim C would send the goods immediately if the Defendant sent the money to the victim C because the Plaintiff’s partner has secured the low-priced quantity.”

However, at the time, the Defendant did not have to secure the low-priced volume, and the Defendant did not confirm whether the quantity was actually secured by the business entity that will deliver the low-priced volume, so even if the Defendant received the price of the goods from the victim, there was no intention or ability to send the low-priced volume immediately.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim through B, received an order of 850 gambling from the victim who was subject to said order, and B was first transferred the said amount to his account on July 14, 2009 and KRW 52,927,400 on July 27, 200, and then received the said amount from B to his account on July 27, 2009.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial entry of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by prosecution;

1. A suspect interrogation protocol concerning B by the prosecution;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Text and certificate of borrowing;

1. Details of passbook transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transfers to banks;

1. In light of the fact that the amount of money obtained by the criminal defendant through deception of the reason for sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the pertinent criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment as set forth in the text shall be determined in light of the fact that the criminal defendant has not been damaged, repaid,