The Defendant at around 20:00 on October 2, 2012, from “AEju” located in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, to AF “AEju”, the Defendant introduced 3-4 staff members if he/she wishes to be employed as an AF. He/she may be a regular employee after three months if he/she enters the AF. He/she may be employed as an AF after the date of entry into the AF. This means that “one million won per head may be changed by a document receipt cost.” The reliance on this means that the Defendant made the victim AG speak to the victim, and received KRW 1 million from the victim AG on October 4, 2012 through the AI account in the name of AH employment.

However, even if the victim AG receives money, there was no intention or ability to arrange employment.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim AG, received KRW 1 million from the victim AG.

The Defendant, including that, from around that time to October 13, 2012, by deceiving the victims in the same manner as the list of crimes in the attached sheet of crimes, and obtained a total of KRW 12 million from the victims, thereby deceiving them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to AF, AJ, K, AL, and AM;

1. Application of the head of a Tong, a copy of a certificate of details of entry and departure transactions, a copy of a bankbook and a resident registration certificate, a copy of resident registration certificate, and a copy of contract;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. From among concurrent crimes, the crime of this case was committed on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. The crime of this case is committed on the grounds of the crime of this case by deceiving 12,00,000 won from six victims. The most means are to arrange the employment of the victims of defraudation, and the crime of this case is not good, even though the defendant had been punished 11 times by a fine due to the same type of crime, and the defendant has repeatedly consumed the crime of this case.