"2015 Highest 5872"

1. The Defendant: (a) on January 201, 201, the victim C was an air captain of Korea without a certain occupation; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant married with the female her mother by the victim C; (c) on the monthly salary of KRW 10 million; and (d) purchased the right to move into redevelopment apartment in Gyeonggi-do and on the ceiling.

In this regard, the wife, including the victim, had the Gu believe that he or she had the Gu.

On November 28, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “Around November 28, 2012, the Defendant would have to pay 10 million won as soon as possible if he/she borrowed money to the victim.”

However, in fact, the defendant was not a captain for aviation, and there was no intention or ability to pay money from the injured party even if he borrowed money from the injured party due to the absence of a certain occupation, and because the money borrowed from the injured party should be used as living expenses, interest, etc., there was no plan to live.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received the remittance from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant, and acquired the money of KRW 10 million, and, as shown in the attached list of crimes, acquired the money by remitting KRW 65 million in total five times from around that time to September 1, 2013.

"2015 Highest 6218"

2. On August 6, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, who became aware of at least three months in Spanish Park, to the effect that “The amount to be invested in the securities company is urgently required, loaned, loaned,” and “a traffic accident was made, the agreement was required,” and “a additional note on the internal house is to be repaid up until August 31, 2013,” and “a refund shall be made up until August 31, 2013.”

However, the defendant did not have any income at the time, and even if he borrowed money from the injured party with no property, there was no intention or ability to repay it, and there was no need for the agreement to grant traffic accidents, and the defendant was also the defendant.