A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

"2016 Highest 6558"

1. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) performed a “D” acting on behalf of the victim C at a mutually infinite coffee shop near Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul; (b) requested that “to assign removal works to the victim E 17 block 1,000 square meters in Seo-gu, Incheon; and (c) drafted a written contract for removal works with the victim.”

However, the defendant was not in a position to act on behalf of D, and even if he did not meet the above 5 million won from the damaged party, he did not have the intention or ability to entrust the removal work to the victim of the Seo-gu Incheon E 17 block.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim as above and let the victim pay 1.5 million won to F who was designated by the defendant at the seat, i.e., the victim, and 3.5 million won in total by receiving 3.5 million won from the Agricultural Bank Account (G) in the name of the defendant on the following day.

"2017 Highest 1559"

2. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant is implementing the project to build a new apartment with the 36 household units in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the 7th apartment complex in Gangnam-gu.

By October 30, 2015, it is possible to obtain the consent of 100% from the residents, which demands the payment of KRW 20 million. With respect to the amount, it will provide the rent deposit amount of KRW 20 million from the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L1st generation bank in security.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have to obtain the consent of 100% until October 30, 2015, and the above lease deposit at the time remains more than KRW 10 million, which is the remainder after deducting the delayed rent, etc., and thus, the Defendant did not provide sufficient security to the victim, and there was no qualification to promote the said new construction project, and even if receiving money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to promote the said project.