On July 1, 2015, the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million as a crime of fraud at the method of Suwon, and filed a request for formal trial, and is still pending in the trial of the first instance.

On September 4, 2011, the Defendant: (a) from “D essential point of week” in the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant’s wife population C, on September 4, 2011, to the victim E, who is the branch, by telephone.

The phrase “to pay back immediately from the lending of money” was false.

However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 100 million at that time, and had borrowed existing bonds to prevent the return of the existing debt, so there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if the Defendant received money from the injured party.

Nevertheless, on September 5, 201, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received KRW 3.6 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (F) in the name of the Defendant; (c) received KRW 1.4 million from November 1, 201; and (d) received KRW 5 million in total from the victim around November 15, 201; and (c) received KRW 25 million from the victim on a total of five occasions, such as the list of crimes, from around that time to November 15, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Protocols of partial police statements to E;

1. A trading statement, etc.;

1. A copy of the decision of the Daejeon District Court (related to a petition for bankruptcy of a suspect);

1. A report on investigation (attaching a credit report);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about criminal history and report on investigation (a summary order, etc.);

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

1. In light of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, there seems to be room for somewhat considering the degree of intention in light of the circumstances before and after the crime committed with the reason of sentencing, and the fact that certain amount is deemed to have been repaid under the pretext of principal or interest, the fact that there is no criminal conviction above the suspension of execution (a favorable circumstance), the same type of crime,