On August 8, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud in Busan District Court's Dong Branch branch branch court, and the above judgment was finalized on November 10, 2018.

1. The Defendant, in the absence of the intent and ability to make a reasonable repayment of a loan in a true installment, acquired KRW 25.9 million under the pretext of a loan, as if he/she would normally repay a loan to a business member of the Fund in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Seoul, and received KRW 25.9 million under the pretext of a loan, as if he/she would normally repay a loan to a business member of the Fund in charge of the Fund in charge of the settlement of disputes.

2. The Defendant of the Victim E established a corporation F (one name “G”) and H to acquire agricultural and fishery products under the name of H and acquired them by fraud in a manner that does not pay the price after supply. Around January 23, 2018 and around February 27, 2018, the JAB in Seoul I market provided the Victim E with the supply of bonds to the victim E in a specialized manner at a hotel, government office, etc. in Busan area. However, if the Defendant supplied three copies per week, he/she would make a settlement every week from January 29, 2018 to February 6, 2018, he/she acquired the bonds by taking the following measures: (a) the sum of the market prices of KRW 47,108,500 per week from the damaged person to February 6, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to K and E;

1. Lritten statements;

1. The current status of installment financing agreements and deposits in preparation for repayment of automobiles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on trading;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense. Article 347 (Selection of Imprisonment);

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The sentence like the order shall be imposed by taking into account the following factors: (a) the former part of Article 37 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes; (b) Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes have not been fully recovered due to the reasons for sentencing; and (c) the extent of damage is small and the circumstances of the crime are highly likely to be criticized in light of the circumstances of the crime.