An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

On December 31, 2012, the Defendant is a person who was prosecuted by fraud at the Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong Housing Site Board on December 31, 2012, and was currently pending in each trial on April 9, 2013 at the Seoul Western District Court.

1. On June 5, 2012, the Defendant concluded that “Around June 5, 2012, the victim F is entitled to the right of removal construction of G apartment and apartment-type factories in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building 209, and that “The victim F is entitled to the right of removal construction of G apartment and apartment-type factories in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.” This interest is paid 2% per month, and all repayment will be made by September 15, 2012, which is the date on which removal construction commences.”

However, the above GG corporation in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government did not have any intention or ability to repay within the agreed time limit, even if it borrowed money from the victim due to any change in the continued construction work, at any time.

Nevertheless, around June 5, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 10 million from the victim as the new bank passbook under the name of the Defendant, and KRW 10 million as the agricultural bank passbook under the name of the Defendant’s father and H, and KRW 50 million as the above H passbook on June 14, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to take the property by deceiving the victim.

2. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F in the “law firm branch” located in the 2nd floor of Cheongcheon Building in Dobong-gu Seoul, Dobong-gu, Dobong-gu, Seoul, stating, “If the removal construction begins repeatedly, 2% of the monthly interest shall be paid to the victim F, if the amount of money would have increased, and 30 million won would be repaid by September 3, 2012.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay within the time limit as above.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 30 million from the victim as the head of the agricultural bank in the name of the above H under the pretext of borrowing money.

In this respect, the defendant deceivings the victim to take property.