A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

Punishment of the crime

On May 19, 2005, the Defendant stated that “Around May 19, 2005, the Defendant would be bound by E, the suspect of the case that DC filed a complaint by requesting the person who is well aware of DC to the prosecution by requesting that DC would be bound by the victim D (the age of 58) at the same time near the shift station located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to detain E even if he received KRW 100 million from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100 million from the victim at the same place on the same day as the same day, and acquired KRW 742 million in total by December 21, 2010, such as the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Copies of cashier's checks of KRW 100 million at face value and receipts (as of May 19, 2005), copies of cashier's checks of KRW 300 million at face value and receipts (as of May 27, 2005), deposit certificates of passbooks at face value (as of October 26, 2005, December 28, 2005), copies of cashier's checks of KRW 10,00 won at face value and 10,000 won at face value (as of November 17, 2006), copies of cashier's checks of KRW 80,00 won at face value, and copies of receipt (as of June 5, 2007, KRW 300,000) at face value, copies of cashier's checks of KRW 100,00 at face value and KRW 100,000 at face value, and copies of remittances at face value and KRW 301,505,2005.

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the defendant and his defense counsel received money from D from D for the conviction of Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes as stated in the crime of fraud on May 27, 2005) of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes, and the reason for sentencing. However, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the money borrowed from D is different from the facts alleged in D, and that the money borrowed from D was fully repaid. However, the above evidence was presented.