A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, the sentence against the defendant A for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A, around 10:00 on April 23, 2015, at the coffee shop located on the first floor of the building owned by Defendant A located in A, A, the victim E, who wishes to lease the fourth floor (27 square) of the above building, was written a lease agreement.

However, there was a decision of voluntary commencement of auction in the Daejeon District Court on September 1, 2014 at the request of the bank prior to the creditor, the above building was not prosecuted, and thus there was no means to enable the victim to normally use the fourth floor of the above building or to recover the lease deposit.

Nevertheless, Defendant A, by deceiving the victim by means of not notifying the victim of the above fact, entered into a real estate lease agreement with the victim for the fourth floor of the above building with a deposit of KRW 50 million for the lease period of KRW 1,00,000,000 for the lease period of KRW 5 million for the same day and KRW 45 million for the remainder payment around May 29, 2015, respectively.

As a result, Defendant A acquired the victim’s property by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects by the prosecution against the Defendants

1. Part concerning the statement of E in the police interrogation protocol against the defendant A;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning real estate lease contract, deposit certificate, etc., work deed, certified copy of register, and voluntarily auction-related mail;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Suspension of execution (Considering the following grounds for sentencing) The fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is large and has not yet been recovered, is an unfavorable sentencing factor, and the fraudulent method is difficult to be deemed to be a bad quality as it is by omission, and the defendant seems to have not obtained or to not obtain criminal proceeds, the fact that all of the crimes of this case are committed against the confession, and the social relation is weak.

(2) the following points.