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

On August 14, 2013, the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with D and Daegu Suwon-gu E, 9,700 to build apartment houses of 687 households with a view to real estate development business, and decided to purchase land, and D to recruit investors and select construction companies.

The defendant, around July 7, 2015, in the Daegu Suwon-gu F building, in the office of the Co., Ltd. of the defendant in the fourth floor, and in the victim B (58 tax) who D had D, " he/she has operated an apartment building construction project to build 687 households on the land outside Daegu Suwon-gu E and 22 lots, and he/she would be entitled to sell the apartment by proxy to the party.

The term "a contract shall be concluded in a fixed manner by paying the down payment of KRW 50 million to KRW 150,000,000 which is required for the parcelling-out contract," and the term "a contract shall be concluded in a fixed manner by showing the balance of KRW 5,50,000,000 in the G name of the investor of the project as the investor of the project, and a contract for parcelling-out contract shall be concluded with the victim under the name of the H president representative of the plan for the settlement of disputes in the same day, and a contract for parcelling-out contract shall be remitted from the damaged person under the name of D as the down payment under the contract for parcelling-out contract on July 17, 2015.

However, even after concluding a partnership agreement with D in 2013, the Defendant had been unable to purchase the land and had been suspended. On May 29, 2015, G invested KRW 50,500,000 from investors G around May 29, 2015, but G did not purchase one parcel of land until June 30, 2015, and as the Defendant did not have any capacity to purchase the said E site and actually purchased the said E site, and received KRW 50,000,00 from the damaged person as the contract deposit, even if he did not have any intent or capacity to exercise the right to sell the apartment as a sales agent.

Ultimately, the Defendant is above.