On January 2015, the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant located in the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, ordered the victim D to have the amount of KRW 30 million at the price discounted by the 3 partitions of the C commercial building at the prime place.

“ ................”

However, the fact is that the defendant entered into a real estate disposal agreement with E Co., Ltd. with the representative director (the conclusion of October 5, 2005) and the second agreement (the conclusion of September 10, 2007) with E on July 31, 2008 and the second agreement (the conclusion of September 10, 2007) were expired, and the defendant did not have the right to dispose of the above commercial building, and even if he received money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to have the above commercial building sold at the discounted price

The Defendant, on January 22, 2015, was damaged by the injured party, and the same year.

2. The delivery was received on December 12.1 million won and on the 16.1 million won of the same month, respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim, thereby deceiving 30 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Part of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the accused by the prosecution (including the whole part of D);

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A written subscription for sale and a deposit statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (reports accompanied by certified copies of corporate registers), investigation reports (reports on confirmation of details of deposits, etc.), investigation reports (reports on the results of inquiries into the facts);

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively including, but not limited to, the choice of imprisonment) on the grounds of sentencing;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to seven years; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] general fraud (less than KRW 100 million). The basic area (from June to one year and six months) (no person who is subject to special sentencing).

3. The fact that the Defendant, who was sentenced to sentence, recognized the Defendant as substitute for the instant crime and reflected his mistake is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant has a history of criminal punishment on several occasions, and most of the damage recovery is still not implemented, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

. The above.