On December 2, 2013, the Defendant introduced the victim C, who met through a hosting app, as a person who engages in the sports clothes wholesale business under the trade name of "D," and promised to marry to the victim.

On April 2014, the Defendant called the victim to the early police on April 2014, the Defendant requires KRW 20 million when the D factory machine gets out of order.

It shall be paid within one year from the loan of money.

“A false statement to the effect that it was received a remittance of KRW 20 million from the injured party on April 21, 2014. On May 201, 2014, the victim called the victim to the first police officer and called the victim to the victim for “a need to pay more funds due to D business.”

A loan of KRW 4.5 million shall be repaid with KRW 20 million.

“A false statement to the effect that it was received KRW 4.5 million from the injured party on May 7, 2014.

However, the Defendant did not operate the “D” and did not have any intent or ability to complete payment even if he/she borrowed money from the injured party without any particular income or property.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, acquired a total of KRW 24.5 million from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. The punishment shall be imposed in light of the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act’s choice of punishment not only is well-grounded in sentencing but also does not recover from damage, and the fact that there is a record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime. However, the punishment shall be determined in consideration of various conditions of sentencing specified in this case, including the defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, relationship with the victim, circumstances before and after the crime.