If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On November 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around the second floor coffee shop of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building; and (b) around November 11, 2013, the victim D (hereinafter “in Korea intends to bring about 300 million business funds from China; and (c) if the remittance fee is only one million won, the funds are immediately entered, and (d) the Defendant will pay KRW 0 million out of the business funds.

The phrase “the phrase was false.”

However, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to attract the business funds of 300 million won from China, and even if the Defendant received the remittance fee from the victim, he did not intend to use it as a remittance fee to attract the business funds.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a delivery of KRW 0,000 as a check from the damaged person as a remittance fee.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to letter of undertaking, copy of a check before himself/herself, and copy of a suspect's identification;

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Provisional Payment Order appears to be against the defendant's recognition of the crime, the fact that the defendant is making efforts to recover damage by repaying part of the amount of damage, etc. The defendant's old age, the defendant's environment, family relations, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, shall be sentenced to the same sentence as the disposition.