2. The defendant is charged with KRW 8,000,000 to the plaintiff.

A. The defendant and C are the same motive for the university master, each university professor is well-known, and there is a fluoral motive in the university as C. The plaintiff is a fluoral motive in the university as C.

B. The Plaintiff and C have invested in the stocks of KSCF (a company running the business related to the stem cell and other stem cell) (hereinafter “instant stocks”) from the Defendant, and have a large amount of relief related to the said company within two to three months, and upon hearing that the stock price would rise significantly, C wired wired the amount of KRW 40 million to the deposit account designated by the Defendant on May 8, 2012, and the Plaintiff wired the amount of KRW 30 million on the same day, KRW 10 million each, to the deposit account designated by the Defendant on the pretext of investment in the instant stocks.

At the time, the defendant was said to the plaintiff and C to the effect that they will return 80 million won out of the total amount of investment principal and their remaining profits, since they would have more than twice the investment principal within three months at the latest.

C. However, unlike the aforementioned estimate, there was no significant increase in the share price of the instant shares within three months. Nevertheless, the Defendant agreed to return the Plaintiff’s investment deposit amounting to KRW 40 million until the end of January 2014 by the Plaintiff, C, and Defendant as a result of the lack of stock price to dispose of the shares to the Plaintiff and C, but as a result, there was a dispute between the Plaintiff, C, and the Defendant on October 25, 2013, since the Plaintiff, C, and Defendant were gathered by the Plaintiff, C, and C, and the Defendant promised to return the Plaintiff’s investment deposit amounting to KRW 40 million until the end of January 2014.

On November 4, 2013, the Defendant remitted KRW 32 million to the Plaintiff.

E. Afterwards, the Plaintiff and C filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant for criminal facts, such as fraud related to the above investment deposit, and the competent public prosecutor’s office on March 31, 2017 stated that “The stock investment is likely to be seen as a single examination transaction, and the fact that the Defendant purchased the money received by the Defendant to the complainant according to the promise with the complainant is confirmed in the specification of transactions through the warrant, and thus, rejected the complainant’s assertion.”