Around November 2014, the Defendant: (a) stated in the bill of indictment that “A victim C (the age of 59) who was previously known by the Defendant while working as a computer repair technician in the Nam-gu, Daegu-gu; (b) there is no absolute damage to the principal due to the existence of a Chinese sports game, such as the sports soil in Korea; and (c) an investment may be made with 20 percent of the principal, along with the principal. There is no loss of principal due to internal experts; and (d) the Defendant deceptioned the victim by stating that “When the principal is lost, the principal will be guaranteed even if the principal is borrowed at another place” in this court; (b) however, the victim testified that “The Defendant would not cause any absolute damage to the Defendant, but would have repaid the principal at another place.”

However, overseas gambling for the defendant cannot guarantee profit or principal, and at that time, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to return the principal or divide the principal into profit even if he did not receive investment money from the victim because there was no special property and there was no specific property.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, received 47,200,000 won in total from November 19, 2014 to May 22, 2015, such as the list of crimes in the annexed sheet from the victim, and acquired it as investment money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (documents voluntarily produced as a suspect);

1. Even if the provider is unable to exercise the right to claim a return against the beneficiary for illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act, it constitutes an illegal consideration under Article 347(1) of the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the beneficiary shall be the provider of benefits through deception.