On December 24, 2014, the Defendant: “Around December 24, 2014, the Defendant: “Around December 24, 2014, the Defendant would engage in an act to return to the exporters of the mobile phone after purchasing the mobile phone with a heavy load of KRW 15 million; if us make an investment of KRW 30 million each, it may receive KRW 40 million, including the profits from around March 2015.”

However, even if the defendant received the above money from the injured party, he did not have the intent or ability to invest in the above project fund.

Nevertheless, on December 24, 2014, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and transferred KRW 15 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (D) in the name of the defendant Cho Jong-c on December 24, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the prosecutor and the police accused;

1. Each statement made by the public prosecutor and the police against B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation, a statement of account transactions, a statement of erroneous discussion use, a statement of approval of our card loans, a schedule for repayment of new card loans, Kakakao Stockholm dialogue, and a text message conversation (Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, 12, 13).

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the scope of the recommended punishment] The reduction area (one month to one year) of Class 1 (the amount less than 100 million won) [the special mitigated person] of the mitigation area, or the case where the degree of deception is weak (the decision of the sentence] in the case where the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and the case where the degree of deception is weak.

This case occurred at the time of the relationship between the defendant and the victim.

It seems that there is a problem of mutual settlement between the defendant and the victim, such as living together for a certain period and using living expenses mixed.

The defendant has no same history of punishment, and the sentencing is judged as per the disposition in comprehensive consideration of all the circumstances.