A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

On December 29, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment as a crime of fraud at the Gangnam Branch Branch of the Chuncheon District Court, and two years of suspended execution, and the judgment was finalized on January 6, 2010. On May 23, 2014, the Seoul High Court sentenced two years and six months of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement, fraud, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 26, 2014.

1. On May 4, 2009, the Defendant called the victim C at the office No. 214 of the D Building 214 (hereinafter referred to as the “D building”) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter referred to as “the shop in the D building”) and made a false statement that “In order to receive a successful bid of 113 as an auction, the lien and E should be resolved, and if so, a lien can be resolved at KRW 100 million, a lien can be resolved at a level of KRW 100 million. The Defendant sent money even prior to the rapid demand for delivery, and there are many other people who want to purchase the commercial building, so that the amount of the lien is increased.”

However, in fact, the lien holder of No. 113 was not E, and E was merely the lien holder of No. 112, and the defendant was to receive the above money from the victim and use it for personal debt repayment, so even if he received KRW 100 million from the victim, he did not intend to use it as the cost for resolving the lien.

Nevertheless, as above, the defendant belongs to the victim, and around May 4, 2009, KRW 50 million from the victim, and the same year.

5.On June 1, 200, KRW 50 million was remitted to a new bank account under E.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired the property of the victim.

2. Around May 25, 2009, the Defendant made phone calls to the victim at the above office and made a false statement to the effect that “In relation to 112, the Defendant must solve the lien problem.”

However, fact is that E was exercising the right of retention against No. 112, but there was no report of the right of retention in the auction process, and even if the money was received from the victim, the related expenses will be paid to E to resolve the problem of the right of retention.