If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a person employed as a business employee of the sales agency in the sales office of a new officetel in Si-si, Si-si, as a sales agency of the sales agency.

On March 9, 2016, the Defendant, at the above-sale office, had the victim D exercise a "profaction", provided that if the Defendant received money, he/she would have the studio of the officetel allocated the studio, or would have the principal repaid with 10% interest at the time of no suspicion.

"Finally false."

In fact, however, secure the right to sell an officetel of good heading rooms.

There was no professional exercise in itself which redeems interest and principal at the time of default, and even if the defendant received money, he thought to be used as personal debt repayment, etc.

The Defendant received KRW 5 million from the victim to the corporate bank E account under the name of the Defendant, including the remittance of KRW 5 million on the same day from the victim at this end, and acquired the money by remitting KRW 15 million in total on five occasions, such as the attached crime list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement regarding D;

1. A complaint;

1. Details of account transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be determined as per the order, taking into consideration the fact that the defendant partly repaid the amount of damage.