On October 2018, the Defendant: (a) entered a contract with the victim D to install a list with the victim D on visit a factory operated by the victim D in Hasung-si on October 1, 2018; and (b) entered into a contract with the victim on October 11, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “the purchase cost of the materials is forwarded because the high-quality and high-quality heading heading heading has been sealed.”

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he/she thought that he/she will be used individually, such as repayment of loans and living expenses, and there was no other property, and there was no intention or ability to install the victim by purchasing the list as agreed by the promise.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 3.5 million won from the victim to the F account (G) in the name of E designated by the Defendant for the same day as the purchase price of the list of crimes, and acquired it by remitting the total of KRW 2,050,050,000 on seven occasions, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. An interrogation protocol of the police against the accused (second time);

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on investigation (revision of a list of crimes);

1. Application of the details of each account transfer and reply statutes for personal credit information;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances before and after crimes, among the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances, among the concurrent crimes:

- The defendant stated that he actually purchased a heavy list at an investigative agency and denied the crime, but confirmed that he did not have any details of the account from the police officer and any details of the use of the money for the purchase of a list were not available.

However, there is a problem.