To the extent that it is not likely to seriously disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, part of the facts charged is recognized differently from the facts charged.

On September 5, 2016, at the victim C’s parking lot located in Silung-si B, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay 15% of the profits accrued from Silung-si’s business (see C court statement and prosecutor’s statement (Evidence No. 130 pages, 35 pages, etc.)” to the victim, “The business is being carried out by investing the amount of KRW 400 million, and then the amount of KRW 10 billion may be received by making a subsequent investment, and the amount of profits equivalent to KRW 300,000,000 per month may be repaid within one year, and the amount of 15% of the profits shall be paid as profits, but the Defendant appears to have made a false statement (see, e.g., C court statement and prosecutor’s statement (Evidence No. 130, 35 pages).”

However, the defendant did not have invested KRW 400 million for the above ornamental fish farming business, and the business for ornamental fish farming was not actually carried out, and even if he received investment funds from the victim due to no specific business plan, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal of investment and the profits to the victim by carrying out the ornamental fish farming business. In fact, the defendant was thought to use the said money as personal debt repayment or living expenses after receiving the said money.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, deceiving the victim and received seven million won from the victim to the national bank account under the name of the Defendant for the same day as the investment money, and, from that to January 11, 2017, deceiving the victim by the same method over 11 times in total, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and deceiving the victim into the national bank account under the name of the Defendant.