On May 30, 2018, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for larceny by the District Court of the Republic of Korea on May 30, 2018.

6. 8. The judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On June 2014, the Defendant stated to the effect that “I will pay money to I within two months if I lend money that I would have to pay.” The Defendant borrowed money that I would have to pay. The Defendant would have to pay I would have to pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I would pay I will

However, the defendant had already been liable for 20 million won, and even if he borrowed the above money, he did not have any intention or ability to repay it.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim as above, received from the victim the amount of KRW 3 million on June 19, 2014, KRW 4 million on June 201, KRW 12 million on the 23th of the same month, and KRW 5 million on the 23th of the same month from the victim as the borrowed money.

2. On June 24, 2014, the Defendant told the victim of the foregoing Defendant’s house to the effect that “the dynamics caused a drinking accident, and the agreement is needed. If the her mother borrowed this money, her mother would have sold the land and repaid it.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have caused a drinking accident, and even if he did not have promised to sell and sell the land, he did not have any intention or ability to repay the above money.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, was accused of the victim and was delivered KRW 7 million from the victim on June 24, 2014.

3. On July 10, 2014, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant shall complete the payment of the prepaid payment that he had previously worked in the Gangnam-si E market. In the event of the transfer of the shop, the Defendant would have repaid the said money with the money, and that the joint and several sureties would be carried out.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the above even if the victim borrowed money with the above guaranteed obligation.

Ultimately, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it from the victim.