If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant committed the following crimes even though he/she received money from the victims who were introduced through a franchisor in the course of his/her activities in the name of the production cost of the franchis, despite having no intent or ability to produce the franchisor, etc.

1. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B, stating that “I would produce a duplicated crime, etc., where I would grant the production cost, such as a photograph duplic, etc., by phoneing the victim B,” and that 10,000 won from the victim around April 5, 2013, and the same year.

5. 8. Around August 1, 2000, a total of KRW 2.50,000,000, were obtained as manufacturing cost, such as Alfa, and

2. The Defendant: (a) around April 18, 2013; (b) around KRW 100,00 from the victim C in the manner prescribed in paragraph (1) and the same year;

4. Around 22.2. Around 80,000 won, a total of KRW 1.80,000 was obtained and acquired.

3. On June 23, 2013, the Defendant acquired KRW 180,00 from the victim D and acquired it by deception in the same manner as that of paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Written petition of D;

1. A complaint (C);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;