A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Punishment of the crime

"2017 Gohap 642"

1. According to the records of this case around December 23, 201, and in particular, according to the victim E’s statement, the time when the defendant made the statement as stated in the victim E with the victim E, the victim’s statement appears not to be “as of January 5, 2012,” but to be “as of December 23, 2011,” which is “as of December 23, 201,” and “as of December 23, 2011.”

In the coffee shop near the Han River in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 94-200, the victim E is conducting the gathering business with the authorization of the right to collect the strong sand from the Gyeongjin-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul.

If the Party makes an investment in its business, 20% per month of the investment amount shall be the investment profit.

“The meaning of “.......”

However, in fact, the defendant did not obtain the authorization or permission of the river sand gathering business in the Ulsan-gun, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to return the investment profit amounting to 20% per month of the investment amount as agreed to by the victim, as the principal of the investment is not a business.

Nevertheless, on January 5, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; and (b) received KRW 30,000,000 from the victim under the pretext of investment.

In addition, the Defendant received from the injured party a total of KRW 618,00,000 from around March 29, 2012 by the following methods, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from that time until March 2012.

" 2017 Gohap 680"

2. Fraud against victim F;

A. On August 2012, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (a) the victim F of the set deposit at the mutual infinite coffee shop located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul; and (b) the victim F of the set-sum apartment apartment 70-80 foot lurfed from the Defendant’s Sungwon-gu, Sungwon-gu, G

Two bonds shall be acquired as a whole.

“False speech” was made.

However, in fact, the defendant has been paying interest of KRW 7.8 million every month due to his husband's obligation to guarantee a bank in the name of KRW 720 million and invested in the company in which the defendant was accompanying.