1. On May 15, 2013, the Defendant committed the crime of May 15, 2013, within the scope of the “D Admission Institute” set forth in C at Chicago on May 15, 2013, and, if the Defendant borrowed KRW 46 million from the victim E, the Defendant would make the interest and principal to be deducted from the monthly salary, as an education instructor, from the D Admission Private Teaching Institute until December 14, 2016. The Defendant would make a false statement of employment contract with the same content, and sent the victim a statement of employment contract to the victim.

However, in fact, the Defendant was liable to pay more than KRW 100 million without any particular active property at the time, and there was no intention or ability to pay the amount by deducting the amount from the monthly salary of the Defendant, even if he borrowed money from the victim, because there was a situation in which the Defendant should return the existing debt by lending money from other persons such as the victim, etc.

Ultimately, on May 16, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 35 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant, and acquired and fraudulently acquired property or pecuniary gains equivalent to KRW 46 million by having the victim take over the Defendant’s obligation.

2. On July 28, 2013, the Defendant committed the crime of July 28, 2013, stating that, within the scope of “D Admission Institute” set forth in C at macro-si, the Defendant would lend the victim E with a loan of KRW 19 million necessary for the repayment of corporate bonds, up to August 10, 2013, he/she would make a false statement to the victim E, and that he/she would make a false statement to the effect that he/she will make a repayment without a mold.

However, in fact, the Defendant was liable to pay more than KRW 100 million without any particular active property at the time, and there was no intention or ability to pay the debt up to August 10, 2013, even if he borrowed money from the victim, because there was a situation in which the Defendant should return the existing debt by lending money from another person such as the victim, etc.

Ultimately, the Defendant is as above.