The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. A summary of the facts charged (1) on February 17, 2014, the Defendant falsely stated that “If 30 million won is invested, 30 million won is registered in the name of D, E will be newly established in the process of environmental pollution prevention guidance, and 50% of the profits that the Defendant recruited students and operated, shall be paid.”

However, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that the injured party is unable to register the research institute under the name of the injured party because of the lack of experience related to the environmental pollution prevention guidance. At the time, the Defendant was liable for the repayment of loans and tuition fees exceeding KRW 100 million and the Defendant was able to use most of the investment funds granted by the injured party as repayment of the above debts and living expenses because the Defendant’s property or income alone was difficult to cope with the above obligation, and there was no ability or intent to pay the profits

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement as above; (b) obtained KRW 10 million on February 17, 2014 from the injured party to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Co., Ltd.; (c) KRW 5 million on February 20, 2014; and (d) obtained KRW 30 million on February 28, 2014 from each transfer; and (b) obtained KRW 15 million on July 28, 2014; (c) around July 2, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 30 million on the part of the Defendant from the victim H in the G Nursing Institute operated by the Defendant of the second floor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim H on July 2, 2013, stating that “When investing in the said private teaching institute and the private teaching institute for the protection of nursing and recuperation, it would cause the nominal victim to have the Defendant paid 70 percent of profits to the victim.”

However, even if the victim received money from the victim as the source of investment, it was thought that the victim will be able to pay his/her personal debt, and there was no intention or ability to pay his/her profit, and there was no intention or ability to allow the representative in the name of the victim

Nevertheless, the defendant's belonging to the defendant is the same as 15 million won on July 26, 2013 from the damaged person under the pretext of investment.