If the above fine is not paid, 100,000 won shall be one day.

After the Defendant came to know of the victim B through introduction of the victim B during his her dynamics with the victim, around January 2008, the Defendant proposed that the victim will help the victim operate the Smarket in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and concluded a lease contract with the lessor D in the name of the Defendant, and the victim operated the Smarket.

On December 29, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim by telephone at a closed area of the Geumsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul-gun”) stating that “one-year rent of KRW 7 million shall be paid to the owner of the building, and seven million won shall be remitted to the owner of the building.”

However, the defendant did not intend to pay the money received from the victim as rent to the owner of the building.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 7 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. A prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant in the court statement B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on each of the real estate lease agreements of the police interrogation protocol to the accused;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The summary of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel regarding the claim of provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant used the above leased object while operating a business with the victim at the time. However, the victim's husband E expressed his intention to use part of the above leased object as an office, and the defendant leased it to E, and the victim received seven million won from the victim as rent. Thus, the defendant did not receive the above money under the pretext of deceiving the victim or borrowing the lessor D as stated in the facts charged.

Judgment

In the case of stop, knife, knife.