【Criminal Power】 On March 19, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Gwangju District Court, and was released on February 28, 201 and the parole period passed on May 20, 201.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Fraud against the victim C;

A. From the beginning of July 2011, the Defendant sent a telephone to the victim C, who was aware of the fact that he had been on several occasions, thereby leaving profits from selling the building by obtaining a successful bid of the goods sold on the side of the bank. The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would refund the building in excess of five million won if it is necessary to be awarded a fair bid.”

However, at the time, the defendant did not work related to auction, and even if he borrowed money from the victim because he lives while living in Seoul and Gwangju without any particular import, he was thought to use it for his own cost of living, and there was no intention or ability to pay.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 3 million from the victim on August 10, 201, and KRW 2 million on August 11, 201, respectively, from the post office account under the name of the Defendant.

B. Around 13:00 on August 16, 2011, the Defendant displayed a building drawing to the victim in the restaurant located in the Yongsan-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, and concluded a false statement stating that “This is the telecom, which would have a considerable benefit if sold after being awarded a successful bid. If the building was operated directly, even if it was not sold, profits would be reasonable even if the building was operated directly. It is necessary to get an auction. If it was leased KRW 15 million, the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million prior to the auction, plus the total KRW 20 million, KRW 4 million per month.”

However, at the time, the defendant did not work related to auction, and even if he borrowed money from the victim because he lives while living in Seoul and Gwangju without any particular import, he was thought to use it as his own cost of living, and there was no intention or ability to pay it.

As above, the defendant deceivings the victim and belongs to it.