On May 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and eight months of imprisonment at the Gwangju District Court on April 30, 2013, and the parole period expired on July 5, 2013. On April 22, 2016, the former District Court sentenced four years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 5, 2016. On July 26, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for the same crime in the same court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 25, 2016.

1. On March 2014, the Defendant would transfer the right to sell officetels in Gwangju, Seo-gu E-gu, Gwangju, to the victim D at a store for commercial convenience in Gwangju, Seo-gu.

The officetel may lend money to a certain amount of money in order to resolve the lien because the lien is established. The officetel will transfer 20 units upon receipt of the sale order in the above officetel 50.

Profit of KRW 8 million per head of 1 shall accrue.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the defendant did not have the above officetel sales right, so even if he borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to transfer the sales right.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 16,00,000 from April 4, 2014 to April 15, 2014 from the victim, to the F National Bank account in the name of the F.

2. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant called the same victim at a fluorial land and continuously makes profits each 2.7 million won per month if he/she invests 20 million won in supplying rice for military supply.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not work to supply rice for military supply at the time. At that time, the Defendant was committing various offenses of fraud, such as lending vehicles under the name of another person and purchasing vehicles with the loan from another person, and failing to pay the purchase price. Therefore, even if having received an investment from the damaged person, there was no intention or ability to pay the profits by supplying military rice for military supply.

The Defendant is identical to this.