[2016 order 1689]

1. The Defendant, around May 27, 2013, received KRW 1 million from the injured party, as intermediary expenses around June 27, 2013, and received KRW 9 million from the injured party under the same name from the Defendant’s H account in the name of H under the name of the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, despite having no intent or ability to help the injured party purchase money even if he received money from the injured party; (b) the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “F in the Republic of Korea-U.K., the Republic of Korea is located in G, and will help the injured party purchase this money if he/she would do so; and (c) the Defendant received KRW 1 million from the injured party as intermediary expenses.

2. The Defendant, around June 27, 2013, received money from the injured party, on the part of the foregoing E industrial company: (a) Notwithstanding the fact, the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to select the E industrial company as a permanent place of business in Hyundai Motor Vehicle’s position even if having received money from the injured party; (b) made a false statement to the effect that “I would have the E Motor Vehicle Industry will select the E Motor Vehicle as a business place of Hyundai Motor Vehicle in a Modern Motor Vehicle by giving 20 million won to the assistant officer of the National Assembly,” and (c) received KRW 20 million from the injured party to the said H’s account for the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

[2017 Highest 207] The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the purpose of fraud on June 13, 2013 in the Magpoon branch of the Gwangju District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 21, 2013.

[2] On December 12, 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the principal even if he/she borrowed money from the injured party to the victim J, which is located in the territory of the Republic of Korea (U.S.) and even if he/she borrowed money from the injured party, the Defendant would not have any intention or ability to repay it.” However, the Defendant’s false statement to the effect that “if the injured party is a public corporation in the south of Korea, labor cost and material cost are insufficient, and the land was loaned as collateral and paid 50 million won interest.” Accordingly, the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the injured party would pay 50