From April 30, 2015, the removal works could be carried out. It stated that the removal works carried out from the said construction works would have changed to KRW 50,000,000, which would provide for the supply of scrap metal and non-ferrouss generated from the said construction works.

However, in fact, the above site is not determined as to whether to implement the project because it is not determined as to whether to implement the project due to the lack of land purchase or construction for the removal and construction of the apartment, so even if the defendant concludes the above contract with the victim, he did not have the ability to supply scrap iron, etc. as agreed upon.

On April 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim; (b) obtained KRW 25 million from the account in the name of F designated by the Defendant on April 20, 2015; (c) obtained KRW 10 million from the account in the name of F on April 21, 2015; and (d) obtained KRW 5 million from the account in the name of G designated by the Defendant on April 27, 201 through the account in the name of G by the Defendant.

2. The lower court found the facts based on the evidence and stated the following circumstances, namely, (i) at the court of the lower court and the investigative agency, that “A shown the power of attorney made between H I and J and the contract made between J and E, and (ii) upon delegation of all the authority regarding the removal works of this case, E believed it and entered into a contract for the removal of scrap metal with the Defendant because E had confirmed that he was entrusted with the removal works of this case; and (iii) it appears that C, trusted the horses of H and trusted that E had the authority to the removal works of this case, would have agreed to receive scrap metal from the Defendant; and (ii) the Defendant would have agreed to receive at least KRW 12 million out of the money received from C, as deposit.