On September 4, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten-month imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on September 4, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2014, and is still under suspended sentence.

Criminal facts

1. The Defendant, around October 6, 2014, at the guidance office operated by the Defendant in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, would lend KRW 10 million to the victim D “on the face of lending KRW 10 million to the victim, he/she will pay the time limit up to October 20, 2014.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the fraternity was already destroyed at the time, and approximately KRW 80 million was responsible for the debt, and was intended to use the money received from the injured party to repay the debt, and therefore there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if it was borrowed from the injured party.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of E under the pretext of borrowing money.

2. On October 10, 2014, the Defendant loaned KRW 30 million to the said victim, since he/she promoted to deliver shampoo and shampoo to China, which is a large amount of money if he/she can do so, at the guidance office operated by the Defendant around October 10, 2014.

“A false representation was made.”

However, due to the shortage of funds, the fact was unable to promote the delivery of shampoo and shampoo to China, and as such, the obligation was borne by the victim, and was intended to use the money to repay the debt. Therefore, even if the victim borrows money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to repay the money.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was transferred KRW 30 million to the national bank account in the name of F under the pretext of borrowing from the victim.

3. On October 15, 2014, the Defendant leased the victim the amount of KRW 30 million as the funds to invest in the construction business are insufficient. On the other hand, the Defendant borrowed the money from the commencement of construction after receiving a contract for construction work.