The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On January 23, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Incheon District Court’s Busan District Court’s Branch Branch, and eight months of imprisonment for the same crime at the Incheon District Court’s District Court on August 14, 2013, and was released on May 2, 2014 during the execution of the sentence, and the parole period expired on May 23, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant is the representative of D, who is the executor of the new business (hereinafter “instant business”) on the land outside Kimpo-si B and two lots, the C commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

When the Defendant lends KRW 100 million to the victim I through the real estate broker G and the head of the said D headquarters H at the F Office located in Bupyeong-si, Busan around December 9, 2016, the Defendant would offer the instant commercial building as security, and would return 150% of the principal amount after six months.

‘False speech' and the contract for the sale in J-ho commercial buildings of this case was prepared.

However, at the time, the Defendant was liable to pay 2.4 billion won or more, and the Defendant and D purchased land only with credit and debt without any capital, and the Defendant and D were in the absence of any construction funds. The ownership of the instant building site was transferred to K stock company and the management right was held by the said stock company. Therefore, the said sales contract did not have any security value, and there was no particular property or income and there was no intention or ability to pay the money even if they were borrowed from the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100 million from the victim’s L account in the name of the Defendant on the same day, from that time until February 26, 2018, received a total of KRW 615 million through five times, such as the list of crimes.

2. Regarding the annexed crime list Nos. 1 to 3, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the sale of the commercial building in this case was not supported by the defendant's failure to pay the victims by the due date. The defendant secured the victims.