1. On June 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B, stating, “I would return money left after selling the land.”

However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to return money to the victim by selling the land even if he borrowed money from the victim because there was a debt equivalent to about KRW 30 million in the absence of personal property at the time.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 7 million from the victim, around June 17, 2010, and KRW 33 million from July 5, 2010, from the victim, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (C) in the name of the Defendant.

2. On September 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B, stating, “The Defendant would return back money left for selling in return with a dry field.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to return the money to the victim by selling it.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the said Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant around September 29, 2010.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statutes of detailed statement of transactions and a copy of payment note;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. In addition, even though the extent of damage caused by the Defendant’s instant crime in the reason of sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act was considerable amount to KRW 60 million, damage recovery has not yet been made up to now. In addition, in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the circumstances leading to the instant crime, means, and methods, the Defendant is determined as per Disposition.