The defendant is the birth of C, an elementary school of the victim B.

On April 2016, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would return funds at any time if it is requested.” The Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would return funds to the Defendant at any time.” The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would make an intermediate distribution business that supplies home appliances to a large retailer, etc. to a household agency.”

However, the defendant did not have any particular property or income, and even if he received money from the victim because he did not do so, he did not have any intent or ability to return the principal.

Ultimately, on May 25, 2016, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received KRW 15 million from the F account (G) in the said name around May 25, 2016; and (c) received KRW 1,810,700,000 in total over 50 times as indicated in the separate crime list from August 31, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's legal statement

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Part of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (attached to data submitted by a complainant, interview report by a complainant and appending written applications for coal, Category C interview report by a suspect, and specification of passbook transactions);

1. Relevant Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act on the crime

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion asserts that the defendant invested about KRW 1.5 billion from the victim and invested about KRW 500 million in the distribution business related to home appliances and invested about KRW 1 billion in the distribution business related to home appliances, and he invested about KRW 1 billion in the Chinese representative and manager business. Since the victim redeems the principal and profit equivalent to KRW 700 million, he did not have the intention to acquire fraud.

2. Determination

A. Fraud, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine 1.