When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Around March 26, 2014, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would pay the Victim C the price for European Tour Goods purchased in D, and would pay the price for the travel goods purchased in D, if he/she borrowed money, he/she would pay the consumer with no money until April 26, 2014, as he/she received the travel payment by inviting a traveler.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had already operated the travelr in the so-called “competing” manner while over obligation, and had already used the proceeds received from the travelers of the above European tour goods in repayment of the existing debt, so there was no intent or ability to pay the proceeds even if they borrowed money from the victims.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 25 million from the victim on the same day under the name of the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant (E).

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the loan certificate and deposit details;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the choice of fines (such as the fact that the defendant is led to confession and reflects against himself, the fact that the defendant has no specific penalty power except once a fine is imposed, and the victim has repaid seven million won to him/her);

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.