On March 1, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim of the dry field cultivated by the victim D, a part of the C University located in Asan-si, Asan-si, B, stating, “If the high-gu net of the products produced are the intermediate merchant of agricultural products, and the high-gu net of the products produced are paid on credit, the Defendant would make a payment by adding the amount of KRW 1,000 to the amount of KRW 500 to the other business operators, instead of the other business operators.”

However, at the time, the defendant was running the illegal game room and was living in flight, and it was difficult to be registered as a bad credit holder due to no particular property or import and excessive debts, and even if he purchases the old-gu net on credit from the injured party, he was merely intended to sell it to others and to use it for living expenses, etc., and did not have the intent or ability to pay the price as agreed.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim and being given 530 times the old-gu net of 2,650,000 won at the market price from the damaged party’s position, was issued by the Defendant in the same manner as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Form, and received a delivery of the old-gu seed and the old-gu net worth worth KRW 21,705,00 in total nine times in total from four damaged parties, such as in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act for the aggravation of concurrent crimes [the scope of recommended punishment] [the grounds for sentencing under Article 38(1)2, Article 50 of the General Fraud [the scope of recommended punishment] that there is no person who is subject to special sentencing [the person who is subject to special sentencing] [the judgment of sentence] [the fact that there is no past record of the same kind of crime [the decision of sentence], the fact that damage has not been recovered, and that it is difficult to expect agreement between the parties because the defendant is unknown at present.