On June 2016, the Defendant, at the coffee shop located in Busan Metropolitan City in Busan Metropolitan City, received revenue from the victim D (the 33 years of age) (hereinafter referred to as certified damage adjusters, labor workers, and directors of the E convalescent hospital), and land in F, and the her mother’s property inherited from the her mother is 2 billion won.

B. If investment is made to B, the amount of 2 million won per month will be created, and the principal will be repaid with the property in the country.

(1) send money as agreed upon;

The term “assumed” was changed.

However, in fact, under the circumstance that the Defendant was employed as a director of the E hospital at around August 2016 and retired from office, there was no special income due to the suspension of clothes business and lawsuit, etc., and there was no special income. Not only the personal marina loan obligation but also the Defendant lent money to several people, although the Defendant had a claim to lend money to other people, it is difficult for the obligor to receive a return even if the contact is discontinued or the interest is not paid without paying the debt. Thus, even if the Defendant was paid the money from the damaged person, it is difficult for the obligor to receive a return. Therefore, even if he was paid the money from the injured person, there was no intention or ability to pay the principal.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; and (b) received a total of KRW 34.2 million from the victim’s bank account in the name of the Defendant on August 1, 2016; (c) KRW 20,000,000 around August 5, 2016; and (d) KRW 13 million around August 12, 2016 on three occasions, including KRW 13,200,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the accused in part of the protocol of interrogation of the suspect in the second prosecution against the accused;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to D;

1. A detailed statement of inquire about transactions in a passbook and a certificate of borrowing;

1. According to the above evidence, the defendant can be found to have obtained a delivery of KRW 67.2 million from the injured party and acquired it by deception under the condition that he/she has no intent or ability to repay as stated in the facts of crime.

Since the defendant returned the above KRW 67.2 million among the above KRW 67.2 million, the above amount should be reduced from the amount of fraud.