On June 8, 2011, the Defendant concluded that “If the Defendant has invested KRW 50 million in the manufacturing of sn beam beam manufacturing machine, sn beam beaming KRW 150,000,000 shall be paid sn beaming KRW 150,000 at the manufacturing of sn beam beaming machine and returned the investment after five years.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not intend to put the above investment funds into the manufacturing machine of sn beam beam, and the (ju)D operated by the Defendant had an intent to use the said investment funds as company expenses, personnel expenses, transactional goods costs, etc. due to very worse financial circumstances, such as the amount of debt up to KRW 1.9 billion. Thus, even if receiving the investment funds from the victim, there was no intent or ability to pay the funds to the victim by manufacturing sn beam beam manufacturing machinery as agreed by the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 15,00,000 from the victim to the bank account in the name of (ju)D) bank account on June 9, 201, and KRW 35,000,000 on June 10, 201, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23293, Jun. 10, 2011>

Accordingly, the Defendant was given a total of KRW 50,000,000 by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Each police statement related to F, E, and G;

1. A complaint;

1. Investment contract (number 6);

1. A copy of a bankbook;

1. Presiding beamline business investment agreement and content certification of the termination of an investment contract;

1. The accounting report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (Law No. 2102 Gay1815 of the Government Land Act);

1. Although the Defendant was guilty of Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act of the relevant criminal facts, the Defendant paid 5,105,650 won, in total, on six occasions from July 11, 2011 to November 14, 201, under the pretext of profits from investment, to the victim.

Even if the defendant received a claim from the victim on July 9, 201 that the investment money was used for the purpose other than the purpose of investment, this is considered to have been paid as the source of the above investment proceeds. Therefore, the defendant's ability to pay, the contents of deception, and the defendant's ability to pay.