A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

The defendant pays to the applicant the amount of KRW 130 million, which shall be obtained by deceptiveation.

Punishment of the crime

On April 28, 2010, the Defendant was released on September 28, 2012 and the parole period expired on December 19, 2012, when he was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months at the Busan District Court as a crime of fraud on May 19, 201, and was released on September 28, 2012.

1. The Defendant, on December 2, 2013, told the victim D to the effect that “if a funeral business operator who is well aware of within the country makes an investment of KRW 200 million, 30 million should be paid after one month, including the investment revenue amount of KRW 100 million.”

However, in fact, the defendant was expected to use money to repay his/her personal debt, and there was no intention or ability to return the agreed investment profits.

As above, the Defendant, as well as by deceiving the victim and being given KRW 200 million for investment purposes, received the total sum of KRW 217.4 million from four times until October 12, 2017, as shown in attached Table 1, as well as from October 12, 2017.

2. Crimes related to victim G;

A. The Defendant in fraud, around May 13, 2015, intends to resolve the issue of debt collection to the Victim G, which is not well known to the domestic law.

First of all, 2.2 million won was paid at the cost of litigation and the travel expenses.

However, in fact, the defendant was expected to use personal living expenses and debt repayment with money, and there was no intention or ability to resolve the problem of the victim's debt collection.

As above, the Defendant, including deceiving the victim and being given KRW 2.2 million around that time, received the total of KRW 73,312,000 from 49 times, as shown in the attached Table 2, until November 1, 2017, by obtaining the delivery of KRW 73,312,00, as shown in the attached Table 2.

B. The Defendant, as the above, forged an official document and the uttering of forged official document, forged the court’s decision as if the court rendered a decision on the collection of claims entrusted by G with the collection of claims.