The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant, on August 2013, at the F office located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 2013, should allow the Victim G to have experience of the Victim G in his/her name, “In order to operate his/her business.”

A false statement was made that 29 million won will be produced in a class of the carra team in a class.

However, even if the defendant receives the above money from the injured party, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to produce the camera.

The Defendant received 4,630,000 won from the damaged party to the account of the H’s bank account on September 26, 2013, and received 9 million won from the same account on September 27, 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

On October 2013, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the “J” restaurant located in the “J”, “The victim K will produce and deliver three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of three of one, one.9 million won each week until November 29, 2013.”

However, even if the defendant receives the above money from the injured party, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to produce the car team.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim from the victim and deceiving the victim, was transferred KRW 9 million to the Korean bank account with H’s name on October 7, 2013, KRW 5.5 million to the same account on October 8, 2013, KRW 17.4 million to the same account on October 14, 2013, and KRW 31.9 million to the same account on October 14, 2013.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor regarding “2015 Highest 67,” the fact that the Defendant: (a) sold the victim G one for KRW 29 million; (b) agreed to receive the remainder of KRW 1,537,000 on December 30, 2013 at the same time as the contract was paid; and (c) even upon receiving the down payment, the fact that the Defendant did not deliver the car team to G is recognized.

Furthermore, the evidence seems to correspond to this part is examined as to whether the defendant had the intention to deception.