【Criminal Facts】

1. In 2007, even if the Defendant borrowed money to another person, the Defendant did not intend to invest the Defendant’s living cost, the Defendant’s thought to be used in the business in which the Defendant is running, and there was no intention or ability to pay interest at 2% per month, or to repay principal.

Nevertheless, around March 5, 2007, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “if an investment is made by a domestic fund, it will guarantee the interest of 2% per month” to the victim C in the car page in which it is impossible to know the trade name in Western-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.” The Defendant received KRW 20 million from the victim’s bank account on March 5, 2007.

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

2. On April 22, 2008, the Defendant deceptioned the victim at a place in which the domicile of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Yangdong is not known by the foregoing method, and sold the apartment owned by the mother of the victim C, and transferred the amount of KRW 12.8 million out of KRW 35.76 million, which was part of the purchase price of the apartment in custody received by the Defendant, to the victim around April 22, 2008, and borrowed the remainder of KRW 2,2960,000 from the victim.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A certified copy of the register, sales contract, and details of transactions;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records and other Acts and subordinate statutes (Evidence No. 6);

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. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The defendant's reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes are the facts of this case.