On September 10, 2010, the Defendant of criminal records was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for breach of trust in the District Court for the purpose of October, 201, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 18, 201, and on October 21, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud in the Jinyang Branch Court for the District Court for the purpose of fraud.

Criminal facts

1. Around February 9, 2011, the Defendant stated that “Along with the Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of the Korea Private Teaching Institutes of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City entered into a land contract with the victim D to build a multi-household house. Along with the short contract deposit, the Defendant would receive a loan and make a full payment once a month.” The Defendant said that “Around March 30, 2011, 30 million won will be paid if the Defendant invested KRW 20 million.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to return the money promised within the agreed period even if he received an investment from the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the national bank account (H) under the pretext of real estate development investment funds.

2. On February 27, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim I, “If the victim’s right to collateral security established in the name of the victim under the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jtel 802 terminates with respect to the E land, the Defendant would immediately borrow the loan in accordance with the security of the right to collateral security in the name of the victim, 35 million won.”

However, at the time of the termination of the above-mortgage, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000 after the victim provided the above officetel to K with other land on the same day as the victim was the subject of the termination of the above-mortgage. However, the Defendant intended to pay KRW 35,00,000 to the victim with the amount borrowed from the money borrowed as collateral even if the victim terminated the above officetel by using the same as E business funds without paying KRW 35,000 to the victim.