The phrase of the facts charged was revised to the extent that it does not actually infringe on the defendant's defense right.

1. Although the facts charged are stated as “the around January 2010” around the beginning of the year of 2012, the Defendant’s fraud is difficult to view that the Defendant used the digital device restoration business to the victim prior to the beginning of the year of 2012, as seen in the following “not guilty portion”.

The defendant and the defense counsel may bring profits of at least KRW 10 million per month to the victim B of an internal-related party who purchased the restoration equipment in China and purchased the restoration equipment in China. The defendant and the defense counsel may bring profits of at least KRW 10 million per month to the victim.

However, in light of the victim’s investigative agency and the victim’s statement, the Defendant’s statement was acknowledged, and so long as the Defendant’s fraud constituted “Fraud”, the issue of whether the said statement was made is merely a transitional fact, and does not affect the establishment of the crime, and thus, it does not affect the establishment of the crime. Of note, the Defendant said that the Defendant would make a lump sum payment with the previous borrowed money after recovering and repairing the used products.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, it was thought that it was used as card payment, living expenses, etc.

In the facts charged, the defendant stated that "the defendant not only bears approximately KRW 60 million but also borrowed money from the victim because he was a person with bad credit standing." However, even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to repay it to the victim." However, the defendant and the victim had a deep relationship for about 10 years (at least 3 times a week) and the victim had a financial situation of the defendant.