[criminal records] The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and three years and six months at the Seoul Central District Court on May 12, 2017, and such judgment became final and conclusive on May 20, 2017.

[2] On September 1, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C at a coffee shop, where it is difficult to know the trade name of the Southern Southern Branch of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a partner D is the head of a domestic branch of the U.S. Investment Company E, and the said company is operating a business by attracting a large amount of funds to Korea for real estate development, financing, investment business, etc., and if only the company entered into an agreement with the said company, the Defendant would have invested USD 100 million within one week.”

However, at the time, the defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the above even if he borrowed money from the injured party.

Nevertheless, on September 15, 2015, the Defendant acquired 1 million won check from the injured party's office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul, with delivery of 20 million won check and 20 million won total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A copy of a check;

1. Records of crime: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, reports on investigation, and application of each of the statutes attached to such judgments;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act: (a) takes into account the reasons for sentencing under Article 39(1) of the Act on the Handling of Concurrent Crimes; (b) the method of deception, and the amount of deception, which is the reason for sentencing; (c) under the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, the fact that the damaged person was wanting to punish the defendant because he did not agree with the victim; (d) the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects it; and (e) the equity with the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time as the judgment was rendered; and (e) other circumstances favorable to the defendant are taken into account.