However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On October 2012, the Defendants entered into a sales agency contract with E, the owner of the above commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) regarding D building construction projects in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The Defendants conspired to enter into a sales agency contract with the owner and did not have any fact that the instant commercial building was sold in lots, and did not have been authorized by the owner to lease the instant commercial building, but on December 28, 2012, the Defendants received from the victim F (China, 26 years of age) and the victim G at the D container office in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan Government”) around December 28, 2012 that “us is entitled to lease 102 of the instant commercial building because us is the actual owner of the instant commercial building, and it would be possible to move within seven days after the completion of construction on March 20, 2013.” The Defendants received KRW 12 million from the victim’s account in the name of Defendant A as the down payment deposit for the same day. < Amended by Act No. 11871, Jan. 15, 2013>

After all, the Defendants deceptioned the victim as above and acquired the total sum of KRW 62 million from the victim on two occasions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Each statement of witness I and G recorded in the recording file of a legal recording system in the sixth trial record;

1. Part of the statement by the witnessJ recorded in the recording file of a court-recording system among the seventh trial records;

1. Protocol on the Investigation of Suspects to the Defendants (including respective statements made by F, I, and G)

1. Application of the police statement-related Acts and subordinate statutes to F;

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 347(1) and 347(1) of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment

1. Defendants in a suspended sentence: The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (including circumstances favorable to the Defendants as seen below) (the scope of recommending punishment) [the scope of recommending punishment] general fraud (less than KRW 100 million) is the mitigated area (one month to one year).