The Defendant was aware of the Victim F who was working at the entertainment center of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “E” and found to be a guest at that place.

On January 2012, 2012, the Defendant was pregnant with the victim’s her child by exposing the phone at an unclaimed place, and then was imprisoned by false statements that it is necessary to conduct abortion surgery, and was re-imprisoned thereafter.

In other words, since it does not work as an entertainment shop, it is false to say that it is necessary to write the name of a child born in G and the name of a child born in G as “H”, and when it is false to say that it is necessary to provide support for childcare, another child’s photograph as “H”’s photograph, and send the victim the above “H” to believe that the above person’s residence is registered as a resident of the Defendant, and then sent a forged copy of the resident registration to believe that the above “H” is registered as a resident of the Defendant’s residence.

However, there was no fact that the defendant was pregnant with the victim's child and was born by her abortion or by her pregnancy.

Nevertheless, on January 12, 2012, the Defendant enticed the victim, and received KRW 1 million from the victim’s I bank account used by the Defendant from the victim on or around January 12, 2012, as well as from the Si to April 30, 2014, the attached list of crimes: Provided, That on February 21, 2012, “On February 21, 2012,” it is evident that the Defendant was a clerical error, and on January 21, 2012, “On January 21, 2012, it appears that the correction was made to be made to the victim, and on October 31, 2013, it appears that the content of the statement on the name and column for the case of KRW 36,00,000 as the victim’s statement at the investigative agency, the Defendant’s ex officio, like a statement at the victim’s agency, appears to be able to have an establishment repaid its advance payment.

The victim deposited KRW 30 million into the J's account under the pretext of paying in advance to the defendant's business establishment, and corrected the amount.

over 39 times in total, such as the statement.