However, even if the defendant recommended investment, D purchased non-performing loans from the victim, and made it difficult for the victim to pay dividends and principal through debt collection, and the defendant did not have any specific assets, and if D is unable to return the investment funds of the victim, it did not have any ability to return the investment funds to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, “If D invests 20 million won in securing credit for the bad credit card users’ credit, the Defendant may impose a big amount on the victim. If the Defendant made an investment, the principal will be returned from August 30, 201 to August 30, 201, and the interest will be paid in 500,000 won per month. In addition, if it invests in D with the purport that it is not known whether it is responsible for the occurrence of the problem, the principal and the revenue will be guaranteed, and if the problem arises, the Defendant could return it.

Therefore, the Defendant had the victim deliver KRW 20 million to the person in charge of the influence of the name of D as above.

2. According to the evidence of judgment, the defendant can be found to have been attracting KRW 20 million from E at the time and place specified in the facts charged, but the defendant was not an employee in charge of attracting investment in D, and the defendant's act of attracting investment in the position of such employee was committed in order to constitute a crime of fraud by recognizing the fact that even if D receives investment money from E at the time of the act stated in the facts charged, it was impossible for the defendant to return the investment money or the defendant's personal intent or ability to return the investment money.