except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On September 5, 2011, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would return the deposit if the lease term expires after leasing No. 207 of the Btel from September 16, 2011 to September 16, 2013,” to the victim C.

However, in fact, the part leased to the victim was changed to the sub-story structure by remodeling the ceiling of 207 head of 207, and the existing 207 head of 207 head of 207 head of 207 head of 207 head of 207 head of 207 head of 207 head of 207 head of 207 head of 201.

On the other hand, the Defendant: (a) purchased an officetel No. 207 without any special property, and received a loan of part of the purchase price at the time of the purchase of the said officetel No. 207; and (b) received a deposit from the victim, used all the expenses for the extension and rebuilding of officetels and the payment of the interior interior interior expenses; (c) thus, the security deposit cannot be returned upon the expiration of the lease term for the victim; (d) there was a situation in which the victim could not return the security deposit upon the expiration of the lease term for the victim; and (e) even though the Plaintiff requested D, a real estate real estate agent, to conduct real estate brokerage for the said officetel, there was a fact that

Therefore, even though the Defendant was obligated to notify the victim of the above matters, the Defendant did not notify the victim thereof.

The Defendant received KRW 3 million from the victim as the deposit money for lease, and received KRW 37 million around September 16, 201 from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property worth KRW 40 million by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to C by the police statement;

1. A written contract, written judgment, and content certification for an officetel whole business;