However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

On February 2, 2011, the Defendant, in the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment No. 801, 303 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), stated that “Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant did not have the right to lease the instant apartment, the Defendant did not have the right to lease the instant apartment from C, the lien holder of the instant apartment, or to obtain permission, from the victim D, the Defendant would have the right to lease the instant apartment, the Defendant would allow the Defendant to reside at the time when the right of retention is completed, for the reason that the Defendant would not have the right of retention.”

2. 24. Minority: 10 million won, and the same year.

3. Around 26.26.20 million won, a total of 40 million won was received, and shall be obtained through deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (a copy of the result of check tracking);

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is that the amount obtained by the Defendant from the victim is less than 40 million won, but the fact that the Defendant returned 13 million won to the victim, that there is no record of punishment for the same type of crime, that there is room to view that C, the lien holder, after the Defendant leased the apartment of this case to the victim without authority, could be seen to have impliedly leased the Defendant’s act of lease. In addition, the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing factors, such as the circumstance that the victim was unable to move into the apartment of this case, age, career, and health conditions