Around February 16, 2007, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would complete payment up to April 5, 2007, if the Victim C, operated by Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim C, that “The Defendant is engaged in real estate-related business in Gyeyang-gu, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million as it is necessary to pay the money immediately after the occurrence of the accident.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had already been liable for 15 million won, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money until the date of the promise because he had been willing to use the borrowed money from the victim as repayment of the above obligation and living expenses.

The Defendant received KRW 20 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative (E) account under the name of the Defendant on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Two-time protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A copy of a bankbook in C name;

1. Copy of a bankbook in the name of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the certificate of telebanking;

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act’s reason for sentencing [the scope of the punishment by imprisonment] [the decision of the sentence] one month to ten years [the decision of the sentence]]] No special mitigation person who does not have any special person who is under special custody [the person under special custody] of the general fraud type 1 of the fraud group [the scope of the punishment by recommendation] [the scope of the punishment by recommendation] [the general person under general custody] from six months to one year (basic area] [the general person] from six months to one year (general person]: Whether there is no person under general mitigation taking advantage of the trust relationship with the victim: there is no person under general mitigation [the decision of the suspended sentence] The main reason for general reference: positive (unapplicable to the suspended sentence): there is no criminal conviction for the defendant for the same time as the defendant for eight months [the decision of the suspended sentence], but there is no criminal conviction above the suspended sentence, and considering the fact that the defendant has deposited five million won or more from the victim, it does not reach an agreement with the victim