A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 2014, the Defendant is a business that can be successful as a result of the prior market research in order to open a model restaurant in the Southern-gu Busan metropolitan area E to the victim D who is a high school at the coffee shop located in Busan metropolitan area.

The investment of KRW 150,000,000,000,000 won within the limit of 600,000 won for the investment of the start-up fund, such as facility costs, shall be made.

Nice makes an investment of KRW 150 million, 25% of the shares, and 25% of the profits of the restaurant.

Since the assets in question are 600 million won, 450 million won may be fully invested.

“False speech” was made.

However, in fact, 60 million won was not required as start-up funds, and the defendant did not have the ability to invest 450 million won in the defendant, and the defendant did not have the ability to invest 450 million won in the money invested by the injured party, and the defendant tried to open the restaurant business after starting the restaurant business, but did not have the intent or ability to invest 450 million won as start-up funds.

The Defendant, as seen above, was remitted to the Busan Bank account in the name of the Defendant on May 29, 2014 from the victim, to KRW 30 million in total, including KRW 120 million in the same account on June 2, 2014, and KRW 150 million in the same account on June 2, 2014.

2. On June 13, 2014, the Defendant carried phone calls from the victim at an insular location, and went away without properly performing construction work after having received construction cost of 50 million won.

In other words, whether or not the construction is undertaken

The payment was made in addition to 10 million won.

The total operating expenses of the restaurant are insufficient and 20 million won is more invested.

“False speech” was made.

However, in fact, the defendant and the manology business operator have discontinued the construction cost of KRW 70 million due to differences in the opinion of the defendant and the manology business operator, and the additional construction cost of KRW 50 million has been disbursed, and the total manology construction cost of KRW 120 million has not been paid, or there was no fact that the defendant paid KRW 500 million to the manology business operator or 100 million has been paid for the additional construction cost.

The defendant as above.