On November 6, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and two years and six months at the Busan District Court for fraud, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 5, 2013.

Even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim C through the victim B, he did not have any intention or ability to repay it.

1. On July 20, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received from the victim a false statement that “A, through G, opens an entertainment planning agency office in the Seoul salt-dong, would promptly return to the victim immediately after the opening of the business, because the opening of the business is insufficient; and (b) received KRW 3 million from the victim, to the account in the name of D. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23605, Jul. 20, 2012>

2. On July 26, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 1500,00 from the victim, stating that “Around July 26, 2012, the Defendant would lend the opening capital to the victim via B, “I would complete the payment immediately after the exercise of the opening capital.”

3. Around August 7, 2012, the Defendant, via B, called the victim’s phone calls, and received KRW 8 million from the victim to the account in the name of B, on the ground that “A, even before, sells ginseng seeds and seedlings for about three months and then exported them to a foreign country. If the Defendant invested in this business, he/she would guarantee a profit of KRW 3 million in one month and pay the victim’s credit card payment.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of prisoners search and seizure;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment, and imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, there are favorable grounds for sentencing, such as equity and reflectability in the case where the defendant was tried with the previous criminal records in the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, but the damage has not been recovered.