The Defendant provided that he would have the victim E receive money by making an investment of “on the part of the victim E”, which he became aware of through the pPC communication club, and received approximately KRW 130 million from December 11, 2009 to January 4, 201, as a result of investment, from the damaged party, to receive approximately KRW 1300,000,000 from the damaged party under the pretext of investment.

As the Defendant was unable to receive any more investment from the victimized party, he had been able to obtain the money continuously from the victimized party under the pretext of operating expenses for the new store of “G” No. 52 of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Commercial Building C, which he received from his father around that time.

1. On March 201, 201, the Defendant, in the name of the cost of operating a new store, may receive money from the victim E to repay the money invested in the existing shares because of high purchase of new shoes from China.

30,000,000 won for the purchase of new shares is loaned, and the cost of goods distribution is high.

A false statement was made to the effect that the amount of the H house located in the Republic of Korea was determined as the redevelopment area and the amount of the loan lent in a non-surbed way may be repaid at one time.

However, in fact, the defendant was thought that he borrowed money from the injured party as well as H redevelopment compensation was used for stock investment, and he did not think that he would be used for the cost of the new store operation, and there was no intention to pay that amount.

Nevertheless, on September 16, 2011, the Defendant received 30 million won from the injured party to the account under the name of the Defendant for the lending of money from the injured party, as well as from around that time to October 18, 201, a list of crimes committed in attached Table from that time to around October 18, 2013.

1. The sum of KRW 83.5 million was remitted over 21 occasions as described in the statement.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. On January 2014, the Defendant, in the name of the cost of refunding the tax for advance payment in China, deposited the amount of 400 million won for the refund of the tax paid in advance to China to the victim in the French area with the amount of 400 million won deposited in the passbook in China.

It is complicated to transfer it to Korea.