[Criminal record] On September 24, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for criminal fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on June, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 2, 2015.

[Criminal facts] On September 5, 201, the Defendant stated in the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D coffee shop” that “A spectrum is a product whose principal is guaranteed in C in the future, with investments made in connection with stocks, etc., and 10% interest accrued every year.” On the one-year maturity, the Defendant stated that “Arhhhhhhhhhh, because the principal may be returned upon the expiration of one-year maturity.”

However, in fact, there was no such product as above guaranteeing principal in the future in which the defendant was working, and even if receiving investment from the injured party, the purpose was to invest in the private investor, and thus, there was no intention or ability to guarantee the principal or investment profits even if receiving investment funds from the injured party.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) obtained the victim’s deception from the victim; (c) KRW 10 million from October 4, 201; and (d) KRW 21 million from October 4, 201; and (c) KRW 10 million from April 30, 2012 from the victim to the bank account under the name of the Defendant’s name; and (d) acquired the victim by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E's written complaint, copy of passbook, inquiry of transaction details, and factoring contract;

1. Copy of the police statement protocol and passbook for E;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiries about criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment to the previous rulings);

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime: Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Concurrent Handling: After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it shall be decided as per the Disposition for the reasons under Article 39 (1) or more;

The reason for sentencing (in the range of the recommended sentencing guidelines) and the basic area of general fraud : June -1st and June: the circumstances that the judgment could have been judged as concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code, which were unfavorable to the fact that the judgment could have been received simultaneously with the final judgment of fraud: the name of fake and the contract will be used.