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

On October 25, 2012, the Defendant, at the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, transferred the ownership of "F loan No. 701 (hereinafter "the loan of this case") to the victim E, received the loan from the bank as collateral and paid as part payment the remainder of KRW 120 million, and the remainder of KRW 80,000,000,000,000 as the mortgagee of the loan of this case, would create the second priority collective security right of KRW 96,00,000 as the maximum amount of debt against which the complainant of this case is the mortgagee."

However, the Defendant, as a bad credit holder at the time, had a debt of KRW 400 million, and even if the Defendant acquired the ownership of the loan of this case from the victim, he thought to use the loan of this case individually to another person, so there was no intention or ability to set up the second priority collective security as a balance for the victim.

The Defendant deceptioned the victim as above and transferred ownership from the victim’s seat, namely, documents, etc. necessary for the transfer of ownership to the loan of this case equivalent to KRW 200 million at the market price of the victim’s possession, and transferred ownership in the name of G around October 29, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Some statements in the suspect examination protocol of the accused and G by the prosecution;

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. Each police statement of E;

1. A complaint and a petition;

1. Each copy of a letter, a sales contract, a receipt, a copy of the register of real estate, and a name tag;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transactions of passbooks;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (In full view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant paid the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the instant case, and that there was no history of punishment heavier than imprisonment in addition

1. It shall be so decided as per Disposition for the reasons under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;