A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Seized evidence No. 1 (C. Doz.) shall be confiscated.

Punishment of the crime

1. Fraud;

A. On February 12, 2010, the Defendant against C is expected to receive KRW 8,2730,000,000 from the head office for 30 cases of insurance solicitation at this time at the insurance agency office of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “E” located on the 2nd floor of the D Building.

Insurance subscribers may pay one insurance premium to the insured at a more time. If the insured are paid with the premium, the premium will be paid in addition to the borrowed money.

“.........”

However, under the circumstances where the Defendant operates an insurance agency and bears a large amount of debt, it was difficult for the Defendant to receive allowances from the head office after having subscribed to insurance in the name of relatives or relatives, and use them for the repayment of funds and debts for the insurance agency operation, and since considerable amount of the insurance subscribers are not maintaining the insurance contract, it is anticipated that the head office should return the allowances to the head office. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to repay the money.

The Defendant received from the injured party a total of KRW 1,893,00,000 on six occasions, including KRW 2950,000 on February 12, 2010, KRW 3720,000 on February 16, 2010, KRW 5560,00 on February 17, 2010, KRW 580,000 on February 19, 2010, KRW 2420,00 on February 23, 2010, and KRW 37,00 on March 26, 2010.

B. On February 25, 2010, the Defendant against F, at H notary office located in G in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 25, 2010, the Defendant borrowed money to the victim F, “The amount of money to be deposited to the head office is changed.” The Defendant would pay 4% interest per month on the loan of KRW 30 million to the victim F until May 28, 2010.

The security will transfer the claim for the return of KRW 35 million out of the lease deposit of KRW 65 million with respect to 1,000,000, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government IB01, which is residing in the Republic of Korea.

“The purpose is”.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have a claim for the return of the lease deposit in relation to the above lending, because the economic situation at the time was the same as the above Paragraph A., and the above lending did not have a claim.