On February 2, 2009, the Defendant stated to the effect that, in the office of the victim C, Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City building C, 229, the Defendant purchased the above unsold apartment unit 41 households from the construction company F to sell them in lots, and that, in order to do so, the Defendant would first lend the above agency deposit amount of KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and thereafter, the Defendant would be 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, under the name of the sales fee for each apartment unit.

However, since the defendant did not have entered into a contract with F Co., Ltd. related to the purchase of unsold housing units, even if he received the deposit from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to return it or pay the profit therefrom.

Nevertheless, on February 19, 2009, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 150 million as a sales agency deposit in front of the office of the F head office located in Daegu-gu Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government, from the victim, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the first trial record;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on sales agency contracts, process certificates, and receipts of apartments;

1. The pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the reason for sentencing of sentence of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] and the reason for sentencing of sentence [the scope of recommendation] general fraud does not exist (10 million won or more, and 500 million won or less) [the person who is subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] [the reason and content of the crime of this case, the degree of damage, the degree of damage, the damage is not recovered, or the victim did not agree with the victim. The defendant committed another crime even though he had the past record of criminal punishment of the same kind, including two times before and after the sentence of this case.