A. The instant case refers to the purport that the Defendants were admitted to the victim as a new student of the “air-type department” and that “this department has a history of about 10 years beginning with the e-mail training center and being equipped with related facilities. It was the issue of whether the above mentioned above constitutes deception in fraud, after transmitting the e-mail that “The 30% of the 30 or 40 students graduated each year from the e-mail and the 60% students were employed as an airline file, and that the 30% of the 30% of the 30% of the 30% of the 30% of the 10% of the 3.0% of the 3.7% of the 10% of the 3.7% of the 10% of the 3.7% of the 3.7% of the 190s

B. The list of new students who were provided before the victim enters the school is specified as “advanced Department,” but it is evident that the school in this case did not have obtained a regular approval of “advanced Department,” in fact.

There was no fact that the aeronautical lighting department was operated in the instant school, and therefore, the history of operating the aeronautical lighting department cannot be discussed in 10 years, and the employment rate of the students who graduated from the said department cannot be discussed.

The Defendants stated that “in the state where the Convention on the Support of the AS Aviation and On-the-job Training Place was already concluded, students who were enrolled in the instant school did not have any impediment in receiving the practical training, and the actual students received the practical training at the airfield of the ASweg Aviation.” However, the Defendants did not enter the instant school to the extent that they were receiving the practical training and the practical training in the ASweg Aviation, not the instant school, and therefore, the Defendants’ defenses cannot be accepted.

In addition, 100% of the flight training is received in the Republic of Korea, which is not the school of this case.