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

[criminal record] Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Ulsan District Court on January 23, 2009 and completed the execution of the sentence on May 16, 2010 (the judgment ①). On August 30, 2012, Busan District Court’s Dong Branch, the sentence was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. on March 5, 2013 (the judgment ②). On April 25, 2013, Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of fraud and defense justice at the Busan High Court on May 3, 2013 and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 3, 2013 (the judgment ③). Defendant is a person who was the head of the Busan District Court’s headquarters at the Busan District Court’s Dong-gu headquarters.

On March 8, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would have the victim G as a staff member of the said E press through F, a staff member of the said E press, employed the victim as a staff member of the said E press, who is an employee of the said E press, as a member of the day-to-day day-to-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-day day-

However, even if the defendant receives money from the injured party, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to employ the injured party as a regular employee of the modern automobile.

On March 14, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) obtained the said F’s bank account (H) from the victim, and acquired the said F’s money as a job-seeking expense loan from the victim on or around March 14, 2012.

The defendant of "2018 Highest 383" is a person who was the head of the E press in Busan Dong-gu.

1. On November 4, 2011, the Defendant committed fraud: (a) on October 27, 201, through F, a staff member of the said E press, would have the victim I be employed as a regular employee in Hyundai Motor, if he/she is a member of the said E press.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to employ the injured party as a regular employee of modern automobile.

Ultimately, the Defendant is employed by the injured party as above.