1. On July 22, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Daejeon District Court, which became final and conclusive on December 3, 2016 on April 6, 2017 after the completion of the execution of the sentence in the area of origin in the Daejeon Correctional District Court. On May 16, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Daejeon District Court for a crime of fraud, and the dismissal of the appeal became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court on October 11, 2019.

2. Criminal facts;

A. A. Around June 16, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B by posting a phone to the Nondefluent land inside Seo-gu Daejeon Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, that “If you operate the relevant business, you need to issue a monthly class of Pokeer articles, and if you lend KRW 2 million to you, you need to pay money to the victim B as you receive money at the site.”

However, at the time of fact, the defendant was living with no income, and there was no money to receive at the construction site, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 2 million from the victim as the borrowed money in the vicinity of the D Association on the same day from the victim, and received KRW 9 million in total from July 31, 2017 to July 31, 2017, from the victim, for a total of five times as shown in the list of crimes.

B. On August 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, “The F teahouse,” in the “F teahouse,” located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, would have three containers owned at the scene where the victim B was aware that he/she sought a container for the purpose of cooking. There are three containers owned at the scene where he/she was working. There are three containers to be placed at the scene where he/she was to be arranged. As the situation should be arranged, one of the containers would be transferred if he/she would be 70,000 won.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not possess a container owned by the Defendant at the time, and even receive a container purchase price from the victim.