On July 5, 2014, the Defendant concluded a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay 2/3 out of the profits, and would pay the principal along with the ordinary profits, if the vehicle is sold,” to the victim C by purchasing a vehicle in which it is engaged in the heavy tea sales business in the Da in the Yasan-si. In that context, the Defendant would pay 2/3 of the profits.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim with a debt of at least KRW 100 million at the time, he was merely the intent to use the money to repay the defendant's debt, and did not have the intent or ability to pay the profit or principal to the victim.

Ultimately, according to the specification of transactions, etc. of the victim on July 7, 2014 (section 3 of the evidence record) by deceiving the victim as such, the Defendant is found to have been aware of the date of remittance on July 7, 2014. Therefore, this part of the facts charged is corrected ex officio.

E received KRW 40 million in total from the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the Defendant on July 30, 2014, KRW 14 million in the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the Defendant on August 2, 2014, KRW 4 million in the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the Defendant on August 2, 2014, and KRW 15 million in the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the Defendant on August 8, 2014, respectively, and transferred KRW 73 million in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Part concerning C’s statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the complaint, detailed statement of transactions, detailed statement of transactions, investigation report (Attachment to the detailed statement of transactions), and detailed statement of transactions;

1. The relevant provision of criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act’s reasons for sentencing [the scope of recommending sentence]: The sentence of sentence is inevitable in light of the following: the basic area (6 to 16 months) of category 1 (the amount less than 100 million won) (the decision of sentencing) (6 to 100 million won) (the decision of sentencing] of the basic area (6 to 106 months), the damage has not been recovered even if the amount of damage was not significant, and the victim wanted to punish the defendant significantly.

However, the defendant has no criminal history of the same kind of crime.