On July 20, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one-year imprisonment at the Seoul Central District Court for fraud, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 17, 2012.

On March 2, 2010, the Defendant said on March 2, 2010, the victim D’s house located in Jongno-gu Seoul building 1 Dong 131, Jongno-gu Seoul, that “the Defendant would make reimbursement to the victim without molding within a few months if the company only lends it in a short period of time.”

However, on December 14, 2009, the Defendant’s own housing owned by himself was provisionally seized in an amount equivalent to KRW 880,000,000,000 for a claim amount of KRW 880,000,000,000 for a claim amount of KRW 3.3 billion was additionally provisionally seized on or around January 12, 2010. According to the disposition on default by Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 14, 2010, the Defendant had no intention or ability to make a full payment even if he borrowed money from the victim.

On March 2, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 350 million from the victim on March 2, 2010, and acquired KRW 465 million on March 19, 2010, KRW 30 million on the same name, KRW 30 million on March 22, 2010, KRW 50 million on March 29, 2010, KRW 50 million on March 29, 2010, KRW 50 million on May 4, 2010, and KRW 465 million on five occasions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the third protocol of the trial;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant (including two times, part concerning the examination of the suspect);

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Investigation report (the report on the results of confirmation before and after the disposition, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime concerned;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act dealing with concurrent crimes, the Defendant asserts that the victim, despite being aware of the difficulty of the company at the time, lent the company’s self-reliance with the knowledge that it was difficult, and that the company did not have any criminal intent by deception because it was sufficiently capable of paying the construction cost claim against multiple businesses.