Around July 3, 2007, the Defendant stated to the effect that “Around July 3, 2007, the Defendant would purchase the instant officetel 1319 at the low price, among which the instant officetels 1319, because the instant officetel 6 bonds had been used as a director in the office of directors, and Mtel 6 bonds were used as a security toO.” In addition, the Defendant said to the effect that “A purchase 170 square meters at the P self-owned land in the U.S. in the Jeju-si Plua-gu, U.S. (U.S.).”

However, even if the victim receives money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to purchase the above officetels and land.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 4 million from the victim by means of the victim’s false statement, and received KRW 54 million from the victim to one bank passbook in the name of the Defendant for the purpose of selling and selling the above officetels and the land, and received approximately KRW 16 million throughout November 15, 2007, as shown in the attached list of crimes (1).

"2014 Highest 3588"

1. On July 12, 2006, the criminal defendant against the victim Q made a false statement to the victim Q Q stating that "if the defendant was a director of the RR company, he may live in 100 won a share of 1,000 won a share of 1,000 won a capital, he would have made an investment." However, the criminal defendant was not a director of the RR company, and even if he received an investment from the victim, he was planned to use it individually.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received a total of KRW 290,988,000 from the victim to November 19, 2007 under the name of investment, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (2).

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Fraud against victims S;

A. On March 8, 2010, the Defendant concluded that “R company will immediately make an investment in the shares of the R company and purchase the shares of the R company if investment is made,” at the U golf practice range office of the victim S in T in the event of economic globalization. However, even if the Defendant received the investment money from the victim, the Defendant would pay the Defendant’s personal obligation.