If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

The defendant is a person who serves as a real estate brokerage assistant.

On August 14, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “I will make repayment within one month because I have borrowed KRW 4 million to the victim,” from D Real Estate operated by Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim B C.

However, at the time of fact, the defendant had no special property and had no intention or ability to pay the amount of the debt even if he received the money from the victim, and only had the intent to use it as the living expenses of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, received 4 million won from the victim under the name of the Defendant through the E account in the name of the Defendant, and received 50,049,540 won in total over 31 times from such time to January 5, 2019, as indicated in the separate crime list.

In this respect, the defendant acquired the property from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C (including a statement of the details of damage to be attached);

1. Debt certificates;

1. Details of transactions in the F Account;

1. Details of G bankbooks;

1. Details of trade in each E unit (59 pages, 62 pages);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to the analysis of details of account transactions by suspects);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order is that the amount of damage to the crime of

However, the victim submitted a written withdrawal of complaint to the court on August 27, 2019, which was after the prosecution.

The content of deception itself can be considered to be so illegal, but the employment relationship and trust with the victim.