A. A. Around November 2008, the Defendant recognized that “A (the Plaintiff in this case) was a victim of the coffee shop near the Sungdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the Plaintiff in this case) in a specialized manner, “B has much business experience in Chinese business, especially dealt with shot. When investing KRW 100 million in China, the Defendant may import shots from China through domestic sales agencies, sell them through domestic sales agencies, receive investment deposits from agencies, and treat 20 containers each month in return for the repayment of investment deposits, thereby leaving considerable investment profits.”

Around March 2010, when the victim refused to recommend the investment of the defendant, the defendant again established the victim as government-invested by "C limited liability company" (hereinafter "C") in Vietnam, and manufactured inside and outside 60 container 1,600 tons per month and exported it to Korea. The two domestic companies were selected in Korea. From the beginning of 2009, the relationship between the personnel of the executive branch in C with the executive branch in Korea was developed, so that the selection was made at a single supplier at this time. The down payment is a condition of 200 million won in deposit and 10 million won in early 200, and the early 100 million won in cash is a condition of 30 million won in deposit. When recruiting an agent, the domestic distributor selected 60 million won in China, and then made a false investment within 20 million won in the initial period, thereby guaranteeing the profits of the agent, making it possible to make a false investment within 20 months in the initial period."

However, the defendant did not have been selected as C's domestic monopoly supplier, and he attempted to acquire money from the victim under the pretext of contract deposit necessary for concluding a monopoly supply contract, business expenses in China, etc., by pretending that C imports shots and sells them through domestic agencies.

The Defendant is identical to this.