On November 3, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) at the Busan District Court on November 3, 2009, and completed the execution of the sentence on March 1, 201.

1. On September 20, 2012, at the E office operated by the victim C in Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, the Defendant: (a) stated, “In the early stage, the Defendant invested KRW 20 million in the foreign secret fund” to the victim in the E office operated by the victim C; and (b) made an investment of KRW 10 million in the early 10 years, the Defendant received revenues of KRW 00 million. (c) Furthermore, the F’s team leader, who is a computer security company, may enter the NIS, and the foreign secret fund should not be regarded as confidential matters. There is a foreign fund that guarantees a monthly 7% profit during the investment period.”

In fact, the defendant was not an employee of F at the time and could not enter the NIS, and there was no foreign secret fund, and it was thought that he received money from the victim and used it as his debt repayment, living expenses, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 1,00,000 from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant on the same day from the victim, and thereafter, transferred KRW 108,820,000 from that time to May 24, 2013, totaling KRW 15 times, such as the statement in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and acquired KRW 21,180,000 in cash over several occasions during the above period, and acquired KRW 130,000 in total.

2. On May 24, 2013, the criminal defendant against the victim G calls to the victim G who was in a fluorous place, and said, “In order to operate the electronic shopping mall, the fluor who is living together within this country has made a large volume of purchase and sale of goods and made a large amount of profits. In the event of an investment, the criminal defendant made an investment to guarantee the interest of 10% per week.”

In fact, the defendant did not have a dynamic who operates an electronic agency.