On September 3, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one-year imprisonment at the Ulsan District Court for the purpose of fraud, etc., and the said judgment was finalized on February 26, 2011.

On May 17, 2010, the Defendant, at the office of “D Judicial Scriveners” located in the Gu and America City, purchased 302,00,000,000 won of the F building 65,000,000,000 from the victim E, and instead of paying the remainder of 55,000,000 won of the loans of community credit cooperatives secured by the said real estate, G, the Defendant, as the Defendant, agreed to take over until June 20, 2010.

However, the facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant operated the “IBC” in Ulsan-gu H for about two years at the time, and the monthly expenditure is approximately KRW 8 million and the monthly revenue is about KRW 5 million, and there is a situation in which the enemy of KRW 3 million each month occurs; and (b) even if the Defendant purchased the real estate from others, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to complete payment of the price.

On May 20, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim take charge of the registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate in the name G and did not take over the above loan obligations, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to 50 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements concerning the suspect examination protocol of the defendant;

1. Statement of each police statement of E, J, and K;

1. A real estate sales contract;

1. A certified copy of the register (F building 302);

1. Loan ledger and detailed statement of transactions;

1. A detailed statement of expected repayment of debts;

1. Statement of the results of transfer;

1. Application of statutes concerning criminal records;

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

1. The above facts constituting a crime on the grounds of sentencing in the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act are crimes falling under the category of general fraud No. 1 on the sentencing guidelines. As such, any specific aggravated or mitigated factors cannot be seen. Thus, the final damages of the victim within the scope of sentencing in the basic area and the final judgment in the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are prior to