On July 24, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud in the Western District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court for the execution of the sentence on January 21, 2010.

"2013 Highest 17"

1. Around June 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, which was known through Internet hosting, stating that “A victim C has the right to operate the store store in the Daegu-gu E-Foundation F High School of the Daegu-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul, which was scheduled to open the school on March 2012, and deposited KRW 15 million as the down payment by transferring the store operating right.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any relationship with the right to operate a store in the above high school, as well as in Daegu-dong-gu D, Daegu-gu, there was no high school opening around March 2012. Therefore, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, he did not have the intent and ability to transfer the right to operate

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 15 million from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant, as the down payment for the store operation right, in the agricultural cooperatives in Chang-gu, Chang-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-si around June 24, 201.

2. On July 201, 201, the Defendant told the victim that “The business of the husband before the fourth year was defaulted, the husband borrowed one billion won from the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund at the time of running the business, and there has been a demand notice from the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund to pay the security deposit.” The Defendant, who was aware of the victim’s statement that “I would like to be “I would like to be a serious problem. I would like to say, this would be a big problem. I would like to apply for bankruptcy and application for immunity to the court and divorce with the husband. I would like to know well that there is a associate lawyer, who was well aware of the inside, and who was delegated to all the attorneys-at-law to handle it well so that there is no problem, 20 million won at the bar’s expense.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to appoint a lawyer.

Accordingly, the defendant is the victim.