However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On November 2013, the Defendant received a proposal from C to "Saro 5, which has been deducted from the construction of the city among the Seoul Songpa-gu D apartment, so it is possible to secure five debentures from the construction of the city among the Seoul Songpa-gu D apartment, thereby accepting the proposal."

On November 2013, the Defendant sent the Victim F to the Songpa-gu Seoul E restaurant, or arranged for the Victim F to talk with the Defendant, “The amount of KRW 75 million per 15 million per unit, after having examined the sale of 50,000,000 won or more of the Guro-gu apartment unit among the unsold apartment units D, shall be changed by 15,000,000 won.”

After the victim met C, the victim raised a question of “I cannot believe C. C. It is possible to use the royalty ledger floor,” and the Defendant stated that “I believe, if I believe, I would like to be in charge of inside and to obtain five bonds, I would like to make it possible for the victim to pay 75 million won in lump sum, I would like to give 75 million won in lump sum, and I would like to sell the above 2 bonds.”

However, there is no fact that the defendant has directly confirmed a member's apartment house of the royalty group with at least 10 stories to be supplied to the victim, and there was no intention or ability to supply the above apartment as promised to the victim to the victim.

Nevertheless, on December 2, 2013, the Defendant received 30 million won from the victim to the post office account in the name of the Defendant and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Part of the witness C’s legal statement;

1. Part of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant

1. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, including the above evidence of deposit certificate, that is, the victim met with C as the defendant's main agent, but it seems that the talk about the apartment as stated in the facts constituting the crime C was not divided, and the victim seems to have a pro-friendly relationship with C to the extent that it could have been trusted and traded with C.