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

The Defendant knew the fact that H (State) operated by the Victim G is in need of approximately KRW 3 billion with the repayment of loans to financial institutions and the fund for the operation of the company, and tried to obtain money from the victim by approaching the victim through I, which was the victim’s friendship and the moving workplace of the Defendant.

On January 30, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant, in the office of the first instance located at the jurisdiction of the Port-si, “B raises funds from a foreign country,” and “A company has received funds from Switzerland, but at this time, the Korean Veterans Association has been raising funds from Hong Kong to the Korean Veterans Association, and it can be lent to the victim because it has enough time to raise funds.”

However, the Defendant did not have any experience in obtaining overseas loans and raising funds to domestic companies, etc., and the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to raise funds to the victim because the Defendant was not in the position of being in charge of raising Hong Kong funds to Korea through the Veterans Association.

The Defendant, on January 30, 2012, has provided a total of KRW 3 billion with the victim and KRW 1 billion on an annual basis with KRW 1 billion, and the repayment of loans is three years after the date of each financing, three years after the date of each financing, three years after the repayment, three years after the date of each financing, and three years. The Defendant entered into a contract as a basic remuneration for financing, and simultaneously pays KRW 30 million as activity expenses, three percent for KRW 1 billion (30 million) for the financing of funds every one year thereafter, and if the financing is not conducted, the Defendant shall refund the fee and remuneration (expenses) within 30 days to the victim.

‘A funding advisory contract' has been prepared, and the victim received US$ 26,500 ($30 million) from the victim as activity expenses.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witness G and I, respectively.