[criminal history] On September 2, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to commit a crime of fraud and a violation of the law by an attorney-at-law in the Busan District Court’s branch court’s jurisdiction, and the above judgment was finalized on November 6, 2009, and the execution of the sentence was completed on April 4, 2010.

[2015 Highest 4827]

1. The defendant was aware of his knowledge;

D, together with D, I tried to receive money from victims E in the Gu room for the Philippines hotel business.

On August 3, 2012, the Defendant recommended the victim E to make an investment by preparing a fair certificate of promissory notes amounting to KRW 500 million, while the Defendant stated that G in Gangnam-gu Seoul is expected to make a lot of profits from the hotel business of the Philippines from the victim E.

However, there was no intention or ability to pay profits to the victim because the defendant did not make an investment in the Switzerland hotel business, even if he did not have any special revenue or asset, and such money was given to the defendant, but it was thought that it was used as repayment of the existing debt or cost of living.

The Defendant had the victim transfer KRW 50 million to a bank account (numberless account) in the name of the same day as the investment money.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with D, was accused of the victim and received property.

2. On October 2012, the Defendant presented the head of the Suhyup Bank passbook, which altered the content as if the victim had been deposited in the officetel of the above victim in Gangnam-gu Seoul, around 2012, to the effect that the victim had been deposited in KRW 33 billion, and there is a need for money to take over the I hotel in H.

The loan shall be repaid within one week from the date of the loan.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant did not have any special income or assets, and even if he received such money, he did not have any intention or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim because he thought to use it as repayment or cost of living for the existing debt, instead of using it as repayment or cost of living.

The Defendant, on October 30, 2012, around 50 million won from the injured party, and around 30 million won from November 12, 2012.