The Defendant, around October 11, 2013, at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I2 floor and the JJ management specialty point operated by the Defendant, requested the victim K, the Defendant’s customer, to request refund of the skin management cost. The Defendant would have the victim lent money to him/her on behalf of the other party and receive interest if he/she lends money to him/her.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, there was no person to lend money to the Defendant, and there was no other property, and there was a loan of approximately KRW 30 million, and there was an idea to use the money for the repayment of living expenses or the obligation even after receiving the money from the injured party, so there was no intention or ability to return the money to the injured party or to receive the interest.

In addition, the Defendant received the remittance of KRW 18.5 million on the same day, and KRW 1.5 million on October 14, 2013 on the same day from the victim’s national bank account (Account Number L) under the name of the Defendant, as well as KRW 14,2150,000 on a total of 22 occasions, such as the list in the attached crime list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement statement made to K by the police;

1. Each additional statement of K;

1. A complaint (including attached documents);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as account transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes [the scope of the recommended punishment] [The reasons for sentencing under Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes] are as follows: In a case where the damage equivalent to the increase in the first step [the person subject to special mitigation] of the type of concurrent crimes as a result of the combination of the same types of crimes has been restored to a considerable amount of damage [the sentence] [the decision] fraud is a large amount], the fact that there is no history of crime, the fact that there was no history of crime, the fact that considerable damage has been recovered, and the crime was committed.