However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The fraud Defendant is a neighboring finite house in Ansan-si, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, on September 2014, and the victim D is a good land that can be invested in public housing in public housing.

After the purchase of part of the parcel, many money can be punished for a short term.

“In stating to the effect that it is “,” the victim should post a down payment to the victim on the 15th day of the same month, he/she recommended the purchase of 165 square meters of land E, and again, on the 15th day of the same month, he/she should post the down payment to the other person.

“.........”

However, as to the above part of land, the defendant had already sold it to another person on behalf of the owner of the above part of land on or around the 3th of the same month, and had received full payment of the purchase price on or around the 5th of the same month, so even if he received the purchase price from the injured party, it was difficult to transfer the ownership normally to the injured party. On the other hand, the defendant used the office operation expenses or personal debt repayment with money in return for the above part of the land as the purchase price from the injured party and used the money in return for the above part of the land, and there was no intention or ability to recommend the injured party to purchase other land.

Around the 15th day of the same month, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received KRW 5 million from the victim; (c) concluded a sales contract for the said land with the victim on behalf of the said owner on behalf of the said owner on the 16th day of the same month; (d) received KRW 38 million as the remaining down payment; and (e) received KRW 42 million as the remainder on the 23th day of the same month; and (e) acquired the total amount of KRW 85 million as the remainder on the 25th day of the same month.

2. The Defendant, on October 23, 2014, introduces the above victim’s better land in lieu of the part of the land indicated in paragraph (1) at the point of embezzlement, and at the point of influent land (hereinafter referred to as the “influent land”).

“after dividing the F land in the vicinity of it, the F land is divided;