The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court, and a fine of three million won for the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On March 24, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for a period of four months of imprisonment for a crime in the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court, which became final and conclusive on April 1, 2017.

[Criminal facts] 1. 2. Maz. 1. 2017 Highest 1623

A. On March 17, 2015, the Defendant concluded that, on March 17, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, in that the Defendant was operated by the wife of the victim D, who was in charge of the loan-related work, the Defendant provided the victim with the claim for the return of the deposit amount for the apartment rent of KRW 260 million, which was not established any right, as security, to provide the victim with the claim for the return of the deposit amount for the apartment rent of KRW 260 million, which was operated by the wife of the victim D, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.

However, in fact, even though the Defendant’s claim for the return of the deposit previously provided to the victim as security was a bond with no value for the loan of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the leased house, the part stating such special agreement was shown to the victim. The victim did not have any intent

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and he received 18 million won, excluding the interest on the same day from the victim, from the victim, and acquired it through the bank account (F) of the defendant.

B. On March 26, 2015, the Defendant committed the crime on March 26, 2015, and provided the victim with “in need of hospital expenses due to the birth of a pregnant fetus,” as a previous security, in that of the above E on March 26, 2015.

Since the claim for the return of deposit of KRW 260 million has no right to the claim for the return of deposit of KRW 20 million, it was false to conclude that the claim for the return of deposit of KRW 20 million has been subject to the creation of a right, the amount of KRW 20 million should be additionally

However, in fact, the claim for the return of the deposit provided by the defendant as security to the victim was a claim with no value as set forth in the above paragraph 1, and the victim did not have any revenue and property.