On July 2014, the Defendant had access to the “D”, which is the Internet real-time hosting site, and had access to the victim E while exchanging contact information with the victim, and had the victim talked with the victim, and had been able to obtain money continuously by deceiving the victim as the divorced woman who is to raise her children to the victim.

On August 22, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant will have to have a two-year divorce and have a two-year baby repaid to the victim at a mutually influent restaurant located in the influent restaurant of the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si,” which reads that “I will have to have a payment after one week if I loan only KRW 500,000,000,000.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was living together with her husband, not with her husband, and as a person with bad credit standing, was unable to repay 20 million won at the time, so there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if she borrowed money from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and being transferred KRW 500,000 from the victim on the same day, and then, from around that time to December 21, 2015, acquired a total of KRW 3225,30,000 through 97 times, as shown in the attached crime list, from around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police officer and prosecutor's protocol regarding E;

1. A certificate of details by account for each transaction;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 7, 10, 13, 16, 17 of the evidence list);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. From among concurrent crimes, there is a confession by the defendant for the reason of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the defendant has no other force than the one-time penalty power due to the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, etc., the damage recovery is entirely possible even though the amount of the acquired money of this case reaches KRW 325,300,000,000.