Of the crimes of No. 1 in the judgment of the defendant, the crime No. 1 through No. 37 in the attached list of crimes and the crime No. 2 in the judgment of the defendant shall be sentenced to one year

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On September 3, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Busan District Court, which became final and conclusive on the 12th of the same month.

【Criminal Facts】

1. From the beginning of August 2013, the Defendant: (a) had regularly received investment money from the victim who invested in a middle-class trading business that he/she operates from a police officer; (b) had used the victim’s knowledge of the second-class trading business; and (c) had no knowledge of the property; and (d) had used the investment money for another purpose.

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would buy a more low-priced vehicle, including the profits in the investment fund,” to the victim at the Busan Gtel office.

However, in fact, the Defendant had no intention or ability to purchase more low-priced vehicles, including the investment money, because the Defendant had thought to arbitrarily consume the investment money.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, received 30,089,000 won from the victim as investment money from the Busan Bank account (Account Number: I) in the name of H Co., Ltd. on or around January 3, 2014, and took over 415,267,000 won in total over 40 times from that time to October 6, 2014, as shown in the attached crime list.

2. On July 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement to the victim that “The Defendant would sell a medium-sized BM vehicle to the end of the vehicle; and (b) would purchase a new BM vehicle to the end of the sentence on a further basis.” (c) the Defendant would sell the vehicle to the end of the sentence.” (d) On the other hand, the Defendant would sell the vehicle to the end of the sentence.

However, in fact, the defendant had no intention or ability to purchase a new BMF vehicle even if he was delivered a vehicle from the victim, because he was willing to sell the victim's vehicle to repay another obligation with the purchase price.

In this respect, the Defendant is as above.