The Defendant liveded on the premise of marriage from May 2012 to January 2013, 2013 with the victim B (n, 39 years of age) and from May 2013, but was decided upon around May 2013, and the Defendant, despite having been living together with the victim outside of the prosecution from September 2012 to December 2012, 2012, concluded that the Defendant was married to the victim on June 2012.

In addition, on May 2012, the victims of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Office D buildings, lakes, and the victims of the victims “as they dispose of the shops that had been operated before the interior, their father has 40 million won.

If a new contract is entered into, the father gave the money.

In addition, he/she will receive money from his/her father in the name of contract deposit and operating expenses, and pay the money by operating it.

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intention to operate well or marriage with the victim, and there was no money to receive from his father, and there was no personal debt of 16 million won in bad credit standing, and thus there was no intention or ability to pay the money because it was planned to use the money for the purpose of living expenses, etc. even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) obtained each delivery of KRW 1,00,000 on May 24, 2012 and KRW 9,000,000 on June 20, 2012 from the victim under the pretext of down payment; and (c) obtained a total of KRW 80,046,016 on 39 occasions from March 3, 2013, as shown in the list of crimes in the separate sheet of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as account transactions details and deposit table;

1. The pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the crime were punished once by a fine for the same crime after the crime was committed on the grounds of sentencing. In light of the content, object, method and frequency of deception, etc., the crime was committed.