1. On June 17, 2013, the Defendant’s fraud, by calls from the victim B to the victim B in the first instance of the Gyeongnam-si, Kim Jong-si on June 2013, 2013, may allow the victim B to enjoy a successful bid for the telecom in Daejeon, and to make the higher profits from selling the telecom.

However, if the cost of investment is insufficient, two times the investment amount will be paid by selling the telecom more than two years.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the Defendant was liable to pay approximately KRW 3-400 million to the financial rights and branch holders without any property or special income at the time, and paid the amount invested by the branch holders with the money invested in the bid price of KRW 1.9 billion. However, the Defendant failed to hold his/her own capital to pay the successful bid price of KRW 1.9 billion, and attempted to pay the successful bid price by obtaining a loan of financial rights as security, but it did not raise the basic funds necessary for the loan, so even if he/she received money from the damaged parties, such as where the possibility of the loan is unclear, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to return twice the investment amount to the victim, as agreed.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was transferred KRW 25,00,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant for the purpose of investment deposit around June 17, 2013 from the victim who was affiliated therewith.

2. On November 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) called the victim B by telephone from around around November 10, 2013, Kim Jong-gu, Kim Jong-gu; and (b) “The Defendant was awarded a successful bid for the commercial building located in the ceiling by auction; and (c) the tenants wish to renew the lease contract and sold the building, even if they sold the building, the date shall be coming for a long time.

If investment is made in the shortage of the balance of the auction, the principal of the investment will be returned together with the investment proceeds of 20 to 30% of the investment proceeds, as the commercial building is disposed of.

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, the defendant did not receive a successful bid for the commercial building in the ceiling, and the defendant did not have any property owned or any special income, such as the above paragraph 1, and at least KRW 3-400,000,000 to financial rights and land holders without any special income.