“The Defendant, on July 26, 2012, at the coffee shop located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 26, 2012, the Defendant agreed to purchase the site and buildings located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D. If only 30 million won is leased, the said building demolition work will be subcontracted and the borrowed money will be repaid until October 2012. The said construction may proceed from the foundation work on the back of 2-3 days.

However, the Defendant was merely liable for 20 million won at the time, and did not have the ability to purchase the said real estate due to the absence of any particular property. Since the Defendant did not have secured the right to remove the building from the owner of the said real estate, the Defendant could not have been able to remove the building, and there was no intention or ability to normally repay 30 million won from the victim until October 2012.

On July 26, 2012, the Defendant received 30 million won from the victim as a new bank account (E) under the name of the Defendant on the pretext of a loan.

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

Around December 2012, the Defendant, “2014 high-level 3050, the Defendant, at the mutual coffee shop located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, concluded that “in the case of the victim F, the victim F is performing the construction of officetels equivalent to the 1,000 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G. There is insufficient money in order to implement the construction by obtaining land transfer from the party who is located in this place. If the Defendant borrowed money to use as a design cost of the building and business promotion expenses, he would have the officetel construction equivalent to 4 billion to be constructed at this place.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the ability to purchase the above officetel construction site due to the absence of any specific property, and it was unclear whether to allow an officetel construction on the above site because it did not secure the right, such as ownership, of the above real estate from the owner of the above site.