A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On September 2014, the Defendant: “Around 2014, the Defendant would pay 50% of the profits accrued from the development of the game to the Party, i.e., 100% of the investment of the Party, and 10% of the profits accrued from the development of the game, because there is a lack of funds between the Defendant and the Defendant and the Defendant who are going to go to the game company.”

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was thought to use part of the money received from the injured party as the Defendant’s living cost. At the time, the Defendant did not have any specific game development and investment recovery plan, such as the fact that there was no agreement with the third party on investment in the game development. Therefore, even if the Defendant received an investment from the injured party in the name of the game development cost, he did not have the intent or ability to return the principal

On October 2, 2014, the Defendant received from the injured party the transfer of KRW 30 million to the account in the name of Defendant’s bank account under the same name as around October 8, 2014, and KRW 40 million under the same name as around October 8, 2014, respectively.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Some statements made to the prosecution or the police concerning the accused in the suspect interrogation protocol;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the detailed statement of entry and withdrawal;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the Defendant of the choice of imprisonment, and defense counsel

1. The alleged defendant had actually developed the game as mentioned in the victim's opinion, but he did not return the investment money of the victim because he failed to recover the investment money by participating in the game, and did not intend to acquire money by deceiving the victim.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the Defendant’s specific game development and investment funds.