A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was the representative director of corporation D, which was located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, 402.

On November 20, 2009, the Defendant: (a) at the G Office of Co., Ltd. operated by the victim F in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant said that “D Co., Ltd. operating within Seocho-gu is actually selected as an agent for the sale of Eunpyeong New Complex Development Project; (b) would substitute the sales agency with G Co., Ltd. with the initial project input cost. If it lends KRW 30 million with the initial project input cost, the Defendant would make 70% out of the official fees for the sales agency to be paid by the executing company by concluding a formal contract with the execution company of Eunpyeong New Town Complex Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., which is the implementation company, for the sales agency and receiving the sales agency fee from the executing company. If it was impossible to conclude the sales agency contract by March 31, 2010, the Defendant said that the sales agency will immediately return KRW 30 million.”

However, there was no intention or ability to act on behalf of the victim on behalf of the purchaser on the ground that the development of the Eunpyeong New Town-oriented commercial area was in a state of failure to obtain a business permit, and D, a stock company operated by the defendant, entered into a provisional contract or contract with the Eunpyeong New Zealand Complex Development Co., Ltd. related to the right to sell on behalf of the purchaser.

In addition, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to return 30 million won to the victim if he did not enter into a contract for the right of vicarious sale by March 31, 2010 because he did not pay the wages and retirement allowances to the workers under bad credit conditions.

On November 20, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 30 million from the victim to the account in the name of Defendant-friendly H as the initial project input cost.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including each of the F major part and telephone conversations part with I);

1.F.