On July 8, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to 2 years and six months of imprisonment on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at Seoul Western District Court on July 8, 2004, and completed the execution of the sentence on October 19, 2006.

1. Around February 7, 2007, the Defendant committed the crime against the victim C (after the name of the victim), the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “In the penta operated by the victim C in Gangwon-do, his father has been doing the mass farm business in New Zealand, his father has been employed for the stock farm, has been employed for the stock farm, and the expenses necessary for the issuance of employment visa will be changed for five years after the immigration.”

However, there was no intention or ability to receive employment visa from the victim even if the contact was cut off at the time, and even if the money was received, there was no intention or ability to receive employment visa.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received a total of KRW 13,024,00 from February 7, 2007 to May 1, 2007, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table from February 7, 2007, under the pretext of immigration expenses, from the victim.

2. From July 2007, the Defendant had been living together with the Victim F, who was living separately with the husband of Hong Kong nationality from around July 2007, with the victim F who was living separately with the husband of the said victim, with the intent of deceiving the said victim by deceiving the marriage with the money.

Around August 7, 2007, at the Defendant’s residence located in the G building 1103 of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant shall appoint an attorney-at-law to conclude divorce procedures with the husband of Hong Kong and the husband of Hong Kong, who is divorced from the husband of the width in Hong Kong, takes one of the husband’s children in Hong Kong, and to do so, he shall also have the property capable of proving his ability to take care of, and to enter into the marriage procedure with the husband of Hong Kong.”

However, even if the above money was received from the victim, it was thought that it was used as the personal project cost of the defendant.