1. On May 201, the Defendant: (a) there is no investment vehicle that provides high interest in D cafeteria located in Bupyeong-si, Busan; and (b) there is no intent and ability to provide the victim E with interest on the five-month interest; and (c) the Defendant borrowed money to the victim, “A well-known place and an investment is made in that place; (d) there is a high interest on the five-month interest; and (e) the Defendant will lend money to the victim.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

Around May 31, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 700,000 from the damaged party to the Defendant’s name Nonghyup Bank account, and received KRW 87,30,000 from that time to March 20, 2015, the sum of KRW 18,00,000 from the Defendant’s name Nonghyup Bank and the Korean bank account, as shown in Appendix I.

2. On March 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) there was no string of facts in the instant D restaurant; and (b) the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to provide time-to-face payments to the victim; (c) despite the absence of the intent and ability to provide time-to-face payments to the victim, the Defendant would provide the victim with KRW 50 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

“A false representation was made.”

Around March 13, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 1 million from the damaged party to the bank account in the name of the Defendant and received KRW 39 million from the time to June 9, 2015, including the transfer of KRW 1 million to the bank account in the name of the Defendant, from June 9, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (the date of the second public trial shall be the date);

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A detailed statement of account transactions (No. 10, 11 on a net basis);

1. Application of the statutes concerning the contents of Kakao dialogue and the contents of text dialogue;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of punishment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. The circumstances favorable to the defendant for the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that increase concurrent crimes (the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the defendant, and there is no record of being punished for the same crime).