When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On January 14, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would work as a delivery employee from the bank because he would work as a delivery employee.” However, the Defendant did not intend to work as an employee from the above Dda to the above Dda.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 2,00,000 from the victim as a prepaid deposit around January 15, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of a copy of the loan certificate and the investigation report (verification of the amount damaged A by a suspect) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014).

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;