On January 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around the Gyeong-gu, Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do; (b) around January 29, 2015, the victim C was the director of D; (c) from the representative director at the south-gu E and F apartment construction site, the Defendant had the right to operate the restaurant.

The above 20,000 won was remitted as the texine down payment to transfer the restaurant operation right.

However, (State) D) transfer the housing construction project related to the construction of the F apartment to Korea around May 2013, and around January 2015, 2015, it did not have any authority with respect to the F apartment construction project. Since the said E apartment housing was in an uncertain state in which the progress of new construction project was not conducted in a state of land purchase, the victim did not have the intent or ability to allow the operation of the said cafeteria.

Nevertheless, on January 29, 2015, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and was delivered KRW 20 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the defendant around January 29, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. Some of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to H;

1. The contract for the entrusted operation of the restaurant in the construction site and the detailed statement of deposit transaction [the defendant denies the crime of defraudation, but the victim immediately paid 20 million won to the defendant immediately after the contract was concluded is premised on the fact that it is possible to operate the restaurant within the nearest time after the commencement of the construction work. The defendant himself was also aware that the investigation agency would receive the down payment from the injured party and the construction was conducted two to three months after the contract was made. At the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, the defendant's assertion as to the real estate development project in domestic affairs is very vague (b).