A. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year for a crime (Fraud) containing the following:

(Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan8452). On October 10, 2012, the Defendant stated to the effect that “If the Defendant lends 2 million UN to the Plaintiff at a “D” restaurant operated by the Defendant located in Nagoya-si, Japan, the loan period is two months, and the interest rate is 50,000 UN per month.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant was unable to properly pay monthly rent because the above restaurant is not well operated, and there was no intention or ability to pay the above amount even if it was received from the Plaintiff, on the ground that there was no very good financial circumstance, such as the Defendant’s repayment of the debt by the tentatively named “competing” method while bearing the obligation of approximately KRW 20 million.

As such, the Defendant, as described in the separate list of crimes, received a total of KRW 5,50,00 ( KRW 74,275,000,000,000,000) from the Plaintiff, by deceiving the Plaintiff as such, and received the delivery of approximately KRW 28,460,00 from the Plaintiff as of October 11, 2012.

B. On August 20, 2014, the Defendant appealed the above judgment of the first instance court, and the Defendant’s Dong E, as the Defendant’s representative, paid KRW 18,00,000 to the Plaintiff as the agreed amount, and on the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s representative E, “the Plaintiff shall not be subject to criminal punishment against the Defendant, but shall consult after the Defendant’s release on the remaining amount, excluding KRW 18,00,000, and the time of payment of the principal and the payment.”

Accordingly, on September 19, 2014, the above appellate court accepted the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, reversed the judgment below, and sentenced the defendant to one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant criminal judgment”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including provisional numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.