If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On June 15, 2010, the Defendant, at the E office located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, in order to conduct a mountainous development project for six parcels of land, other than the victim, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and to purchase KRW 520 million at KRW 260,000,000 for mountainous district as 20,000 won per square, there is insufficient expenses for permission for mountainous district development projects.

First of all, if the victim has prepared a loan of 100 million won to H as security, and again has lent it to the defendant, 30 million won shall be paid as sales contract amount to the victim and the remainder of 70 million won shall be used as the cost of permission for mountainous district development.

Along with the permission for mountainous district development, it was false to obtain loans from the banks of the United Nations, and pay the remainder of the purchase price in full.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to obtain permission for mountainous district development of the above land from the Si/Gun, and did not have any intention or ability to purchase the above mountainous district in accordance with the above agreement.

Nevertheless, on June 15, 2010, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) had the victim set up a collateral of KRW 150 million with respect to the said mountainous district to H; (c) had the victim borrow KRW 100 million with respect to the said mountainous district; (d) received KRW 45 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant; and (e) received KRW 25 million from the victim to the said Agricultural Cooperative Account on June 16, 2010; and (e) acquired KRW 70 million in total by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and I;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of a copy of project implementation agreement;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code for the inducement of a workhouse is that although the defendant denies the criminal intent of defraudation and did not agree with the victim, the defendant at least seems to have been willing to obtain permission to develop a mountainous district for the land of this case.