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

The Defendant served as a member of the business of “stock company D”, a bad debt collection company located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and performed search and seizure for the said company on or around March 2012, and thereafter became in charge of the Chairperson of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee of the said company after the search and seizure of the said company was conducted. The victim E was a person who invested in the said company in an amount equivalent to KRW 300 million.

On April 10, 2012, the Defendant took measures to collect and recover the investment amount from the non-performing loans of the said company at the reciprocal coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, stating that “Before being taking charge of the representative of investors of the investment company, the Defendant would have been able to assist the Defendant in collecting the claims because there are many people who have been taking charge of the representative of investors of the investment company, and in the police and legal profession, there are many people who want to become 100 million won of the expenses for collecting the claims.”

However, even if the victim receives money from the victim, there is no intention or ability to carry out the debt collection business.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 20 million from the victim for debt collection expenses via F around that time.

The defendant also invested KRW 40 million, but did not receive a return, and Eul asserts that he was the actual operator of D Co., Ltd., and that part of the investment amount of KRW 20 million was returned to the defendant under the condition that he did not file a complaint.

E is recognized as the actual operator of the above company and is serving in prison imprisonment, and the defendant was an investor in the above company.

Even if the defendant invested 70 million won as the same investor, G, which was the general secretary of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee, also stated that the defendant's "a person who was jointly and severally in the police station and became able to easily collect claims because there are many legal persons," and around June 2012, the defendant was well aware that the defendant's claims collection business becomes well-grounded in the defendant's claims collection business."

"In this Court," and in this Court.