The defendant of "2012 Highest 2527" is a person who operates D Co., Ltd. (Representative E) from November 2007 to is engaged in construction business.

The Defendant, as follows, received property equivalent to KRW 127,80,980 in total by deceiving the VictimF.

1. On April 18, 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would supply the victims with construction materials, such as steel plates, poppy, and poppy, to the construction site and pay the price by the end of May 201, at the site of construction,” at the H office for the management of the victim F in the Chungcheongbuk-gun G.

In fact, the Defendant had no property, such as his own real estate or deposits, around that time, and around March, 201, purchased approximately KRW 170 million a comprehensive construction license to open D and had not been paid KRW 60 million out of the price, and the KRW 100 million was paid by I. Thus, even if he was supplied with construction materials from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if he was supplied with them.

On April 20, 201, the Defendant received from the victim the total market value of KRW 9,057,180 in total, such as steel plates, H beam lines, and poppy, and the Defendant received from the victim the total amount of KRW 2,428,80 in total from the market value of KRW 11,485,980 in total.

2. On May 4, 201, the Defendant concluded that, within the H office as indicated in paragraph (1), the Defendant would make a false statement that “The Defendant would make a payment to the victim by the end of May, 2011, along with the construction materials that he received before he/she borrowed money that he/she would incur a shortage of funds.”

In fact, the Defendant was unable to repay the obligation arising from the purchase of a comprehensive construction license as described in paragraph (1), and the Defendant was unable to pay the personnel expenses of the employees at the construction site because the circulation of the funds in the construction site was not well achieved, so there was no intention or ability to pay the said expenses even if he borrowed money from the victim.

The defendant is the name of the victim as the borrowed money.