On September 28, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C at a coffee shop where it is impossible to know the trade name in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, that “I wish to remove the Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-style Korean-

However, the fact was that the victim did not have the intention or ability to leave the hanok.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 125 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant on October 2 of the same year as the down payment of the Korea-style Housing Construction Contract.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement D in the suspect examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A copy of the standard contract for private construction works, a receipt, a detailed statement of deposit transactions, a copy of the schedule of the progress of the construction works, a copy of the construction work execution note (as of March 25, 2013), a copy of the tracking of A's whereabouts and photographs, a copy of the cash storage certificate (as of April 8, 2013), or a copy of the cash storage certificate (as of May 8, 2013);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (information on contact points of witnesses E);

1. The reason for sentencing [In full view of the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment [the land on which a house was built] [the defendant has already been specified, and the defendant has failed to perform the next day work on the grounds of delay of construction work, etc., and the defendant has used most of the money received from the victim for personal purposes, it is determined that the defendant acquired money from the victim under the name of the contract price] / [the scope of recommending punishment] there is no basic area (10 million won or more, but less than 50 million won) of the second category (1-4 years) of ordinary fraud [the decision of punishment] [the amount of damage [the decision of punishment]] / there is no few basic areas (1-4 years] of punishment [the defendant has been sentenced to a multiple sentence of punishment due to fraud,