However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On October 4, 2016, at the office of “D real estate” located in Ansan-si, Seoul, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for a detached house with the victim E at the same time as the Defendant owned. In fact, even though part of the fence, which constitutes the boundary of the said detached house, was invaded by the boundary of the land located in G at the time when a part of the fence, which constitutes the boundary of the said detached house, was known to the owner of the said land, and the dispute was pending due to the occurrence of the boundary between the said owner and the landowner, the Defendant, without notifying the above boundary intrusion problem, was committed as if there was no problem of the boundary of the said house, and then the Defendant entered into the

After that, according to the above sales contract, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the injured party as the down payment on the same day (five copies of the KRW 10 million check), and acquired money by transfer from the account (H) in the name of the Defendant on October 6, 2016 under the remaining terms of the contract deposit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and I;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against J;

1. An attachment to a statement (a statement verifying objects of brokerage and an explanatory note);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that they do not have any criminal intent by deception against the defendant as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel.

The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to observe each other in the transactional relationship with property. Of them, deception by passive acts refers to a person subject to duty of disclosure who is unaware of a certain fact that the other party has been involved in a mistake and does not notify the other party of such fact. If it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of such fact, in light of the principle of good faith, if it is evident that the other party would not have done the juristic act, it shall be legally obligated to notify that fact in light of the principle of good faith.