On January 31, 2002, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on December 4, 2002 at the Seoul Central District Court. On February 12, 2007, the Suwon District Court sentenced three years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud, etc. at the Sungnam District Court’s Sungnam District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 23, 2007.

"2010 Highest 3752"

1. Around June 30, 2003, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G's house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FF loan No. 402, stating that "The Defendant purchased and sold 10 H loan of Seodaemun-gu Seoul and 10 H loan of Seodaemun-gu. The Defendant would offer H loan 1 on the face of a new loan of money."

However, the facts are that the defendant paid 150 million won to the above lending owner as a security deposit for the sale by proxy, and the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the money or deliver H lending one bond even if he borrowed the money from the victim because he did not purchase the above H lending.

On July 21, 2003, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received a transfer of KRW 25,000,000 from the foreign exchange bank account under the name of the Defendant over three times on July 21, 2003, and received a total of KRW 216,820,000 as shown in [Attachment] Nos. 1 through 23 of the List of Crimes.

2. On August 30, 2003, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, stating that “There is a lack of funds to purchase and sell all 7 households of the first building of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, with a view to purchasing and selling in lots. If the Defendant borrowed money, the Defendant would give the above 2 households and offer BM7 business vehicles as security.”

However, the defendant did not have entered into a real estate sales contract with the owner of the above loan, and even if he borrowed money from the victim because he did not own the ownership of the BMW7 business vehicle, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it or deliver it to two generations.

The defendant deceivings the victim and is under his control.