A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On April 29, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. by the Daejeon High Court, and completed the execution of the sentence in Daejeon Prison on June 2, 2012.

[1] On May 2015, the Defendant introduced 1. 201, 2015, 201, 435, the Defendant, within the residence of the victim E located in YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY, and introduced 300 million won as the Chairperson of FF, Inc., Ltd. in order to perform the internal construction of a restaurant within a factory located in Asan, 300 million won. The Defendant would operate

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the defendant was not the Chairperson of the FF corporation, and did not have the right to operate the cafeteria in the factory in ASEAN, so even if he received money from the injured party, he did not think that he would be able to pay his personal debt, and there was no intention or ability to allow the injured party to operate the cafeteria in the above cafeteria.

On June 24, 2015, the Defendant received money of KRW 23 million from the injured party to the Agricultural Cooperative account (H) in the name of G living together with the Defendant on June 24, 2015, and received cash of KRW 9 million from tin, namely, from October 9, 2015, and received money or received money of KRW 73,20 million in total over 14 times as shown in the attached Table 1 list of crimes from October 9, 2015.

2. "2017 Highest 518".

A. On February 21, 2013, the Defendant against the victim C is the Chairperson of a company with the victim’s internal employees exceeding 1,000.

The term of the restaurant contract in the factory of the company operated by the new marg, expires, and if the deposit amount of KRW 70 million is paid to G operating the restaurant at present, the restaurant operation right will be granted.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, there was no fact that the Defendant operated a company exceeding 1,00 employees at the time, and there was no restaurant operated within the company, so even if the Defendant received money from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to transfer the right to operate the restaurant to the injured party.

The defendant.