On October 17, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, in the E-printed Office for the victim’s operation in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Defendant would operate a factory where the victim recycled closed to the current F with the trade name and supplies it to red mar farms. The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, “The Defendant would pay the acquisition price and take over the factory by paying the acquisition price as his body is required to dispose of the Amph plant.”

However, the defendant did not own a closed processing factory, and even if he received the price from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to transfer the closed processing factory.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received 1,150,000 won from the victim to the account in the name of the Defendant; (c) from that time until April 7, 2015, the Defendant received 6,1450,000 won in total from that time under the name of the Defendant, such as the cost of acquiring a factory and securing raw materials for work purposes, from that time to that of the Defendant.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report, accusation report, details of transactions of deposits and withdrawals, and copies thereof;

1. The sentence shall be imposed by taking into account the relevant legal provisions of the crime and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the selection of the punishment, the amount of damage caused by the reason for sentencing of imprisonment, the circumstances leading to the crime and the fact that the victim has failed to repay damage up to the present day. However, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in light of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the fact