[Criminal Power] On January 3, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 11, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

Since the Defendant had been unable to repay money from another person from around 2006 to around 2008, the office operation expenses had not been paid properly due to bad credit standing, and thus, it was not sufficient from the beginning to accept the “C” set of the Philippines. The above Lart acquisition business had already been in the state of not having been able to pay the price four times or more and one year has not passed since it had already been paid four times or more, so the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the profit. Therefore, even if the Defendant received an investment from the victim D, he did not have any intent or ability to accept the said Lart to have the victim operate the restaurant, etc. in the said Lart, or pay the profit.

Nevertheless, on June 8, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 180 million from the victim, on June 8, 2008, from the first instance court office of the Guro-gu Seoul Etel 710, that “The acquisition work was almost completed, and if the Defendant invests KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 from the victim, so that he/she may receive KRW 30,000,000 or more per month of the conditions of the investment of KRW 200,00 from the victim.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. An investigation report (a report on confirmation of the amount 180 million won issued by the complainant);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (number of suspects, and attachment of final and conclusive judgments), case information, and application of statutes governing judgment;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The amount of damage caused by the instant crime is KRW 180,000,00 for the reason of sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes.