On April 26, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement that “D” office operated by the Victim C in Sinung-si, Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul and Eastern Market will purchase clothes and export them to the United States. However, if the Defendant borrowed the cost of purchasing clothes, he would pay them one month after lending the cost of purchasing clothes.”

However, the defendant did not have any particular property at the time, and there was no import. Even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he/she used it for personal purposes or purchased clothes with this money to make investments to others, and exported them to the United States, and there was no intention or ability to pay to the victim within one month.

The Defendant received KRW 1,500,000 from the victim to August 2, 2013, including transfer of KRW 1,500,000 from the victim for the purchase of clothes for the clothing business from the seat, from August 2, 2013, and acquired KRW 44,613,00 in total from the United States to the United States for the purpose of raising funds for the purchase of clothes for the clothing business, living expenses, and expenses for the repayment of existing debts, etc. as shown in the attached crime list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Investigation report (a document accompanied by a photograph of one million U.S. written by a suspect);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of transfer, the details of agricultural cooperatives' accounts, and the details of new bank accounts;

1. The pertinent provision of the criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, the reason [the scope of recommending punishment] for the sentencing of the sentence of imprisonment [the grounds [the scope of recommending punishment]] and the basic area (6 to 16 months) of the punishment (6 months and 16 months) [no person who is a special person] [the decision of sentencing] of the defendant confessions and reflects the crime of this case], and the fact that there is no previous conviction sentenced to a fine exceeding the fine is favorable to the defendant. It is reasonable to view that there is no previous conviction that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine, and it is favorable to the defendant, and it is also impossible to fully repay it by deceiving the victim through a repeated act without any particular revenue or property