When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

From spring around 2010 to August 23, 2010, the Defendant received from the injured party E a request to exchange Chinese currency from the injured party to the Korean currency, and kept the 80,000 U.S. Ma-Ba (Korean currency equivalent to KRW 16,00,00). At around that time, the Defendant arbitrarily transferred it from the U.S. Ma-Ma F to the F’s business fund, and embezzled it.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (two times);

1. Application of the lending certificate statute on August 23, 2010

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of selective fine for punishment (the fact that the injured party appears not to want the punishment of the accused and that there is no record of the suspension of execution or higher punishment);

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment;

1. Facts charged;

A. Fraud (1) The Defendant made a false statement to the victim G at the Cheongdong Middle School located in the U.S. Sindong-si, China around 2009, stating that “The Defendant is required to pay money to the victim G because there is no money to change the Korean currency in the exchange business, and there is no money to change it into the Chinese currency.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the profits through the money exchange business.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, obtained delivery of the Defendant’s 135,00 Franchis worth (the equivalent of KRW 27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000) from the Chinese citizen from around 2, 2009 to April 11, 201, including the receipt of the above proposal on September 30, 200, which was issued on October 12, 2009 by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim from the victim.

(2) On August 23, 2010, the Defendant demanded the return of D’s above 100,000 won at the “D’ restaurant operated by the Defendant in the Chinese Mountaindong C,” and the victim E who urged the return of the above 100,000 won.