[criminal record] On September 26, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon branch, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on February 19, 2014. On October 24, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor in the Daegu District Court Port Branch, and completed the execution of each of the above punishment in the Port Branch on June 19, 2014.

[2017 Highest 729]

1. Crimes against victims C;

A. On March 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim of the sexual traffic at the end of the end of the year, stating that “I would have been employed in D where I would have become a permanent resident, and there would have been a waiver of employment. I would like to be employed, the Defendant would have to pay KRW 50 million to the executive officers of the Seoul head office.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not know the executives of the D Company at all, and thought that he would use the money received from the victimized party as entertainment or living expenses, etc., so there was no intention or ability to employ the injured party as the above company.

On April 5, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, got the victim to borrow KRW 44.5 million from the lending company around April 5, 2016, and KRW 21.5 million from the credit card company around the 6th of the same month, and received KRW 61,125,00 in the name of solicitation for employment from the victim, and received KRW 61,125,00 in the name of introduction expenses for the lending company, etc.

B. The Defendant specified the facts charged in the facts charged at the end of July 2016 as “around July 2017,” but in light of the content of the facts charged and the record of evidence, etc., this appears to be an obvious clerical error in the “not later than July 2016,” and thus, such recognition cannot be deemed as an obstacle to the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense (this does not mean that such recognition would interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense). The victim made a false statement to the effect that “if the Defendant wishes to engage in the work to find employment in D, additional KRW

However, the defendant did not know at all the executive officers of the D company, such as the above paragraph (a).