On August 10, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 4 months of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) at the Ulsan District Court on August 10, 200, and became final and conclusive on August 18, 2009.

Around January 15, 2008, the Defendant: (a) at the first floor coffee shop of the hotel in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) “Around January 15, 2008, the Defendant provided the victim C with a lot of scrap metal to supply scrap metal when a factory is under construction; and (c) the Defendant provided scrap metal from March 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to provide the victim with the scrap metal, or did not have the establishment of a factory built by the sea-line or received the sea-line.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim on January 22, 2008, received from the victim a transfer of KRW 90 million from the victim in a place not opened at a place around January 22, 2008.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Statement of the police interrogation of the accused (including the part concerning the statement of C, D, and E);

1. Statement of the police statement of F, G, H, and I;

1. A complaint, copy of the contract, copy of the transaction of passbook, etc., copy of real estate lease contract, contract, income certificate, details of transactions of passbook, reply, receipt without passbook, etc.;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act for the treatment of concurrent crimes [the scope of recommending punishment] There is no basic area (6 to 16 months) of types 1 (less than KRW 100 million) [the defendant and defense counsel] [decision of sentence] The defendant and defense counsel denies the criminal intent of defraudation if they were not to have the right to receive the right by reason of change of circumstances. However, in full view of each evidence in the judgment, the defendant transferred most of the money received from the victim to H, J, etc. of the defendant who was unrelated to the building of the right to use the right to use the right or the right to use the right to use the right to use the right