[criminal history] On February 27, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on October 22, 2015, for a one-year period of imprisonment for fraud in the support of Suwon Friwon, which became final and conclusive on October 22, 2015.

[2] The Defendant: (a) around December 3, 2013, at the “D” coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “C”), G and H, an employee of the victim E (representative F) company, are expected to import gas products in China and deliver them to home shopping; (b) when investing KRW 100 million, the Defendant would pay 4% of the sales price per goods as investment commission and pay the principal and investment fee until May 31, 2014.

“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, in fact, the defendant had the intention to receive investment money and use it for the existing other personal debt repayment, etc., and there was no other ability to import and deliver gas, so there was no intention or ability to pay investment proceeds, etc. to the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim from the victim, through the account with the name of the Defendant’s wife I, obtained a total of KRW 90 million from each remittance on February 6, 2014, and KRW 40 million on February 12, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each part of the statement made by the J and K in the first examination protocol of the suspect to the accused;

1. Statement made by the prosecutor with respect to L;

1. Investigation report (M telephone conversations for witnesses);

1. Details of account transactions (I-Korean bank), and claims, seizure, collection order, etc.;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiries about criminal history and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of inquiry about summary information;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to treat concurrent crimes: Provided, That the part of the damage recovery is reasonable by not only the amount returned to the victim is 27 million won, but also the amount returned to the victim is merely 27 million won. The reason for sentencing under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Code to obtain a payment guarantee without value as security, and most of the funds are spent for personal purposes.