When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. Around April 7, 2014, the Defendant, by deception, made a false statement to the victim B that “The Defendant shall purchase a promissory note at a discount point with C, 35 million won, D representative director of the issuer Dispute Resolution D, and FF bank credit branch” at an influent place on April 7, 2014.

However, the above bill did not have the intention or ability to settle the bill as it is not a normal bill.

The Defendant deceivings the victim by the foregoing method, and was transferred to the victim KRW 1 million on the same day, KRW 2 million on April 17, 2014, KRW 7 million on May 21, 2014, KRW 15 million on June 3, 2014, and KRW 32 million on five occasions, including KRW 7 million on June 12, 2014, and KRW 7 million on June 12, 2014.

2. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant, by deception, made a false statement to the above victim stating that “Around July 1, 2014, the Defendant would allow the said victim to obtain KRW 400 million by means of a branch office known in a company bank and a F Bank, and would have changed money under the pretext of intermediary expenses, and if there is no money, the credit card would be changed.”

However, there was no intention or ability to arrange a loan.

The Defendant, by such means as deceiving the victim, received two corporate bank cards from the victim on the same day from July 1, 2014 to the 16th day of the same month, received a total of KRW 18,285,000, and received a bank card from July 3, 2015 to pay KRW 6,410,000 from July 3, 2015, and took property benefits equivalent to KRW 24,695,000.

3. Around March 14, 2015, the Defendant, by deception, made a false statement to the above victim stating that “Around March 14, 2015, the said victim is well aware of the owner of the HA who works for the building site store of the company Gangnam-gu Bank and the Chuncheon Credit Guarantee Fund. By speaking to the above two persons, the Defendant would be able to receive KRW 200 million credit loans from the ASEAN.”

However, there was no intention or ability to arrange a loan.

The Defendant above.