1. Design non-title fraud Defendant, at the victim D’s house located in Seopopoposi Si, Seopopopo City, on December 11, 2015, will present an estimate through the design office on the face of the victim’s house “On the face of the victim’s house located in Seopopo City, Seopopopo City, E with a view to holding a house of 30 square meters.”

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, the Defendant had been in a cumulative state of debt worth worth, such as credit payments and housing security loans, without any particular income or property at the time, and was aware that the cost is not imposed in the case where only the drawing is requested by the design office. Therefore, even if he received the amount from the injured party for the design cost, he did not intend to use it for the repayment of other debt, and did not have any intention or ability to use it as design cost.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and transferred 1 million won from the victim to the F's account in the name of the victim.

2. On December 17, 2015, the Defendant, in the name of the construction cost, will leave a house equivalent to 30 square meters above, to the victim at the victim D’s house located in Seopopopo-si, Seopo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si.

“The first construction contract shall be made up of KRW 40 million, intermediate payment of KRW 30 million, KRW 25 million, the total construction cost of KRW 95 million, on condition that the contract deposit is completed by May 30, 2016 on the same day, and the first construction contract shall be made up of KRW 40 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 25 million, and KRW 95 million, and the victim will first purchase the main materials after the payment of most of the construction price to the victim.

“A contract was entered into for revision with the total construction cost of KRW 85 million, KRW 20 million, KRW 20 million, and KRW 15 million.

However, in fact, it was not possible to obtain construction permission because the roads that enter E are not constructed at the Seopopopoposi, and the defendant was required as material cost only to the extent of KRW 1,000-1 and 50 million out of total construction cost.