On July 28, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement that “When operating funds are needed to operate red ginseng factory, KRW 500,000,000 shall be paid monthly, and KRW 100,000 shall be paid KRW 100,000 after one year.”

However, the Hong ginseng Factory was operated under the defendant's own name, and the defendant did not have any specific property and thus there was no intention or ability to pay the profits or to pay the principal, even if the defendant borrows the above money, such as the defendant's lack of effectiveness of compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving him from the victim on July 29, 2008, transferred KRW 50 million from the victim on July 29, 2008, and KRW 30 million on July 30, 2008, to the Defendant’s account, and defrauded KRW 80 million in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the seventh trial records;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Statement of each police statement regarding D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each passbook, notarial deed, and certified copy of register;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and reasons for sentencing under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act of the option of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The amount of less than 10 million won by means of general fraud in determining types of fraud;

2. Basic sphere of decision on the recommended field; and

3. Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than one year and six months; and

4. Aggravationd factors of general talented persons: Use of personal trust relationship.

5. The main reasons for deliberation on whether to suspend the execution: The reasons for the general participation in the agreement: A person who has not tried to recover from damage before the same criminal record or by no effort to recover from damage.

6. The fact that the amount of obtainment of the sentence was not so significant, the damage was not paid up to the present time even though the investigation agency promised to pay the damage, and there was no contact for a considerable period of time even during the proceeding of the instant trial, and the contact was interrupted even after the second attendance at the trial.