On June 28, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at a mutually influent restaurant located in the Yongsan-dong of the Sejong-si, the Defendant: (b) sold the apartment in the name of the victim D; (c) there is a lack of the successful bid price.

It is necessary to change the name of the auction to the victim by lending KRW 40 million for the successful bid price, and make repayment by completing the registration of transfer of ownership of the above apartment to the victim by the end of 2012.

“A false statement” was made.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, the Defendant was merely the intent to use the Defendant’s personal debt as auction proceeds, and did not intend to use it as auction proceeds. At the time, financial institutions were liable for approximately KRW 100,000,000 at the time, while there was no particular revenue or property, there was no intention or ability to repay the money by auction as promise.

Around June 28, 2012, the Defendant received money of KRW 20 million from the damaged party to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, and acquired property benefits by receiving KRW 77,80,000,000 from that to June 8, 2015, in total, eight times from that to that to that of the Defendant’s agricultural bank account.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in the protocol of prosecutor's statement concerning D;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, and the choice of punishment (contestation, inclusive)

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant has no criminal intent to defraud the Defendant, as he/she has delivered all the money received from the injured party to E conducting auction business of KRW 77.8 million.

2. Therefore, the judgment was based on the following facts: (a) even if the Defendant received 77.8 million won from the injured party, the Defendant delivered 7.8 million won to E.

However, this Court has duly adopted and investigated it.