On May 2006, the Defendant was running the interior construction business of the Goyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Ilyang-si, and the Defendant agreed to conduct a partnership business on the condition that the Defendant bears 20 million won as business expenses and allocates future construction profits. However, the Defendant did not have any 20 million won of the partner fee to be paid to D.

Therefore, the Defendant, on May 22, 2006, received KRW 20 million from the victim F, using the said apartment complex’s financial account (H) in order to transfer KRW 10 million to D, a sum of KRW 20 million, by allowing the victim to exclusively receive the model voucher construction of the above apartment complex, although the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to exclusively secure the model voucher construction of the above apartment complex to the victim F. However, the Defendant made a false statement to “C Apartment 2, 44, and 8 to exclusively receive the model voucher construction of the above apartment complex” from the victim. The Defendant, on the same day, issued KRW 10 million to D in cash of the construction site before the above four apartment complex to the victim, and acquired KRW 20 million through G’s financial account (H) on the 27th of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of the F, E, and D;

1. Application of receipts, written agreements, and statutes;

1. The relevant provision of the criminal facts and the reason for sentencing of Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment) [Determination of Punishment] Fraud. General Fraud, Type 1 [Scope of Punishment of Imprisonment] from 6 months to 1 year and 6 months [Pronouncement of Punishment], the amount obtained by the Defendant has not been much much, and the amount obtained by the Defendant has not been recovered from damage to the victim has been seven years passed since 7 years have passed, the sentencing factors which are disadvantageous to the Defendant, taking into account each of the favorable sentencing factors that the Defendant’s mistake is too against himself/herself and has recovered from damage, and the Defendant considers the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. as stated in the records, and determine a sentence lower than the sentencing for recommendation as ordered.