On August 25, 2016, the Defendant, at the office of “B,” operated by the Defendant, recommended the victim C to make an investment in the purification machine development project that the Defendant is proceeding with the victim C, and the victim refused to do so, saying, “If the Defendant borrowed KRW 1,500,000,000,000,000 is to be used for a short-term and complete payment

However, at the time, the Defendant, as a bad credit holder, reached 1.6 billion won at the time, and most of the borrowed money from the victim was thought to be used for personal purposes, not for development costs of the piracyr. However, there was no particular revenue, and there was no specific plan regarding the development of the piracyr, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money from the victim even if it was borrowed from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deceiving the victim as above and received KRW 1.5 million from the E bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant’s child in the name of the victim for the same day as the loan money from the victim. From August 25, 2016 to December 19, 2016, by deceiving the victim in the same manner as the list of crimes in attached Form 20,570,000 won as the loan money, and by deceiving the victim from around six times from around August 25, 2016 to December 19, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C;

1. A detailed statement of receipt of loan, details of deposit, and deposit transactions;

1. Application of statutes on text screen pictures;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime concerned;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the fact that the defendant with reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act has no capacity to impose a fine or heavier punishment is favorable to the defendant.

However, although the defendant acquired a considerable amount of money by deceiving the victim, the defendant showed an attitude to commit a false crime against the victim in the course of investigation and trial.

did not appear to make efforts to reach an agreement.

In addition, the victim is economically affected by the fraud of the defendant.