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

On January 14, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D on January 14, 2016, stating that “The Defendant would allow the victim D to move into the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Etel 3.2 square to KRW 150 million.”

However, the above officetel was suspended due to the failure of the Corporation around 2009 when the defendant performed the construction work of the above officetel at F Co., Ltd. for which the defendant worked as a director. The officetel was provisionally seized at the financial institution where the PF loan for the construction cost was in progress and there was no serious progress in the building completion or other sales business even after the office’s ownership exceeds LC of a limited company, and the defendant did not discuss the above officetel’s purchase of buildings and officetels, or there was no practical plan to prepare purchase funds exceeding 20 billion won, and even if he promised to purchase the above officetel from the injured party, he did not have any authority to trade the above officetel in half of the sales price.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and was delivered KRW 15 million to the new bank account (H) in the name of the defendant G on the same day from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written complaint (including attached documents);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Where the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] according to the sentencing guidelines is [the scope of the recommended punishment] general fraud range (less than KRW 100 million) and the mitigation area (not more than one year), the punishment of which is not granted or a significant damage has been recovered;

2. The decision-making process of punishment is agreed to pay the victim with the money obtained by deceit, and the crime of this case was committed again despite the punishment already imposed with respect to the instant officetel, and it was committed in addition to the above.