On July 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the D office operated by the victim C in South-gu, Nam-gu, the Defendant: (b) “Pool construction is being conducted; (c) the materials cost is required to be paid to the trees of the construction site.

If the construction cost is received, it was said that it can be paid immediately, so that the price of materials may be lent.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the national tax liability of KRW 160 million and any personal liability related to the construction work, as well as the construction cost has already been paid in advance by the owner, so even if he borrowed money from the victim because the received construction cost has no longer been paid by the owner.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received money of KRW 9,382,840 from the victim on the 31st of the same month from the victim; (c) received money of KRW 9,382,840 from his own account (F) around the same month; and (d) received money of KRW 129,287,640 in total as the borrowed money over 37 occasions from March 9, 2015, as indicated in the separate crime list from March 9, 20

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statements by witnesses C and G in part;

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

1. Details of Defendant’s transactions, details of transaction in post offices accounts, and details of transaction in entry and withdrawal of passbooks;

1. Standard subcontracting contracts for each construction business or officetel sales contracts;

1. Loan certificate (10 million won);

1. A copy, etc. of remittance details of H transfer to the original ordering office;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (referring to amendments to the amount of damage, revisions to the details of H remittance, and references to credit information of the accused);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts is that the Defendant attempted to prevent the Defendant from unfairly returning money in such a way that he/she receives multiple constructions without sufficient financial resources to borrow money from the victim, etc. or to let the ordering party pay the money directly.