If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On November 27, 2016, the Defendant found the victim D at a mutually infinite coffee shop near the exit No. 1 in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to be in charge of a restaurant (worker restaurant) located in F, immediately after the completion of construction of E, during December or January, and such contents were left by the Ministry of National Defense, because the military life in the military was left at the security stand of the Ministry of National Defense.

Contract terms are several contracts, and there is no problem if a new corporation establishes a corporation for the purpose of group meal service business, food service business, and food material distribution business, at the same time as the contract is entered into, the contract amount of KRW 10 million and the contract deposit of KRW 290 million is required at the same time as the contract is entered into.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to operate the restaurant even if he received money from the injured party as the down payment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim on November 29, 2016; and (b) obtained money from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of H designated by the Defendant as a contract deposit in around November 29, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Part concerning the cross-examination of the suspect against the defendant in the prosecutor's office

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. The petition of complaint and evidentiary materials (the victim is consistent from the investigative agency to this court, and the defendant is expected to operate the restaurant as stated in its ruling at the latest from January 2017, and the operator's selection is carried out in the form of a contract. Thus, the right to operate the above restaurant can be promptly acquired through the G visa office and the senior senior public official in charge and the defendant with the inside of the public official.

“I hear the language to the effect that “, as it is stated in its reasoning, the remaining Defendant believed to have paid 10,000 won a restaurant agreement to the other Defendant, as it is, and at the time, with respect to the restaurant receipt made between the Defendant and the victim.