The defendant pays 40,000,000 won to the applicant B for the compensation.

On March 6, 2017, the Defendant received money from the first floor of the Seo-gu Daejeon building C, Seo-gu, Daejeon, with the intention of acquiring Daejeon D, and subsequently made a false statement to pay money to the victim B, if there is a lack of money in acquiring D.

However, the defendant was actually in operation.

Since it is difficult to maintain the financial status of E, it is not clear whether to accept the attached D, and even if receiving the money from the injured party, it is thought that it will be used to repay the personal debt such as the payment of the deposited vehicle and the credit card payment, so there was no intention or ability to pay it even if receiving the money from the injured party.

The Defendant received 40,00 won from the damaged party to the bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. The witness G and each legal statement in B;

1. The submission of tape-records and CDs;

1. Details of expenditure of the political party headquarters and a statement of card use;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the developments in which a person under investigation was registered as the inside director of Daejeon D);

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and imprisonment;

1. Articles 25 (1), 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits for Compensation Orders;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning

1. The alleged Defendant did not commit deception, did not have the intent to commit fraud, and the received money was put into the victim’s building construction as agreed with the victim.

The argument is asserted.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the acceptance was practically difficult and did not properly notify the Defendant of such fact. Therefore, the Defendant had the criminal intent of defraudation.

It shall be viewed.