On August 17, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year at the Seoul Central District Court for fraud and other crimes, and was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 25, 2010.

In March 2008, the Defendant said, “D” office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, that “If the Defendant performed a land reclamation project, the Defendant loaned KRW 80,000,000,000 for the purchase price of Gyeonggi-gu F and G, and for the purchase price of the said land, and KRW 5,00,000,000,000 for the cost of surveying the said land and preparing a provisional partition plan, the Defendant would purchase the said land and install the access road, and then divide the land and pay the principal and interest within three months, and then the Defendant would pay 2.5% of the principal and interest within three months.”

However, even if the Defendant concluded a contract for the sale and purchase of the said land using the money borrowed from the injured party as the down payment, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the profits remaining by opening and dividing access roads.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received the total sum of KRW 85 million from the victim on March 27, 2008, under the pretext of borrowing from the victim, and received the delivery of KRW 5 million on the end of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal testimony of witness E, H and I;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Certification of a real estate trade contract, receipt, promissory note, each note, process deed, and content;

1. A previous conviction: A written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history (the fact that the defendant and his defense counsel received KRW 85 million from the injured party, but this is the investment of the above money by the injured party in the land development project jointly promoted by the defendant and H, and the defendant merely did not return the above money to the injured party in the course of the seller's failure to pay the intermediate payment because the problem of securing access roads, which was implemented by the seller in installments, was not resolved.