[criminal power] On April 12, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and the above judgment was finalized on July 26, 2018, and on August 16, 2018, the Seoul East Eastern District Court sentenced two years of suspended execution to six months of imprisonment for fraud. The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 24, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

Around July 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) purchased KRW 100 million from the victim E in the name of “D judicial scrivener office located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) purchased KRW 67,438 square meters from the victim E in the name of G in the name of “D judicial scrivener office”; and (c) concluded a sales contract with the victim as above, by means of a false statement with the victim, so that the victim can establish a right to collateral, which is the creditor of the said real estate, with the payment of KRW 10 million as a single down payment, as well as KRW 10 million as a single down payment, to establish a right to collateral, which is the creditor of the said real estate; (d) first, if the said real estate is in the high seas as a security, the collateral was supplied with the goods from the customer as an intermediate payment, and then disposed of the collateral; and (e) concluded a sales contract with the victim as above.

However, the Defendant, at the time, committed a total amount of 50 million won against the business partners B at the time, and among them, even if the Defendant’s obligation to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) was created for the purpose of securing that amounting to approximately KRW 2.7 million, the Defendant could not be provided with additional goods from H even if it was created for the purpose of securing that amount, and even if the goods were supplied by family H from the said business partners, the sales proceeds of the goods were used for the repayment of the obligation to the said business partners. As such, even if the right to collateral was established on the real estate that the Defendant agreed to purchase from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the purchase proceeds to the victim.

The Defendant is as above.