On September 1, 2014, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would pay KRW 2,606,000,000 to the victim by September 2, 2014, a total of KRW 13,000,000 per one punishment, on the face of delivery of KRW 2,005,000,” from the victim C’s warehouse of the victim C’s operation D.

However, since Defendant 1 was supplied with the above crowdfunding and attempted to sell so-called dumping, it was not clear whether to sell the above crowdfunding and make profits therefrom. At the time, Defendant was liable to pay approximately KRW 40 million, and the Defendant did not have any particular income or property, so even if he was supplied with the above crowdfunding from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to pay the price thereof.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, was supplied 2,005 punishment to the victim, which is the sum of the market value of KRW 2,606,500,00 from the seat.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] [the grounds for sentencing of the type 1 (from June to January 6) of the basic area (the scope of recommendations] [the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] of the defendant has the power of being punished for the same kind of crime [the decision of sentencing]; the defendant has the power of being punished for the same crime; the defendant's age, sex, character, intelligence and environment; relationship with the victim; the motive, means and result of the crime; the circumstances after the crime are considered.