The Defendant had a debt of KRW 170 million in total, including KRW 100,000,000,000 borrowed from the victim D who was the employee of the Defendant, and KRW 100,000,000,000,000 borrowed from the family members, such as a person who was the employee of the Defendant, and a person who was related to the other family, and KRW 80,000,00,00

In fact, although the Defendant did not engage in a drinking water distribution business, the Defendant received money from the victim under the pretext of investment in the drinking water distribution business, etc., and received the money from the victim to meet the above debt repayment and living expenses, etc. on July 2008, and falsely stated that “E” restaurant located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (E) will leave the victim with much money to pay for the drinking water distribution business,” and that this is the same year from the victim.

8. Around 29.20. Around January 10, 201, a total of KRW 788,99.4 billion, including a transfer of KRW 10 million to the Japanese bank account (Account NumberF) in the name of the Defendant, from that time, through the same method until January 10, 201, was remitted 44 times in total, such as the list of crimes in the attached list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Entry of the accused in D of the first written protocol concerning the examination of suspect in the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to details of deposit and trust transactions (the Japanese bank, and 78 pages of investigation records);

1. The defendant asserts that the judgment on the defendant's assertion of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (generally referred to as "the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes" for the crime is paid 420 million won to the victim as interest and profit, so the above amount shall be deducted

However, in the case of fraud involving taking advantage of property, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it itself constitutes a crime of fraud by infringing on the victim's property, and a considerable amount of consideration has been paid.

shall not cause any damage to the entire property of the victim.

It is also a fraud.