A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 4, 2011, the Defendant stated to the effect that, “Around July 4, 2011, the Defendant would sell the instant forest land at KRW 77 million (hereinafter “instant forest land”) to the victim C who intends to return to and live in a restaurant where the trade name in heavy-ro 2, Seoul Metropolitan Government is unknown, and that “Around July 4, 201, the Defendant would sell the instant forest land at KRW 1090,914,000,000.”

However, in fact, the forest land of this case is owned by E, and the defendant did not purchase the forest land from E, and the defendant did not know about the owner of the forest land with money from the victim and had no intention or ability to transfer the ownership of the forest land to the victim because the defendant et al. thought to consume it

On July 4, 2011, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained the victim as such; (c) KRW 20 million as the down payment for the instant forest trading; (d) KRW 27 million as the intermediate payment around July 29, 201; and (e) obtained KRW 10 million as part of the remainder payment on August 30, 201; and (c) acquired the victim as a total of KRW 57 million as the intermediate payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a receipt, a copy of a real estate sales contract, a certified copy of real estate register, and a criminal investigation report (report accompanied by

1. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, Article 347(1) of the relevant criminal law regarding the crime, and the reason for conviction of imprisonment, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the Defendant denies the intent to acquire the money from the victim at the time of receiving the money from the victim as the purchase price of the forest of this case is acceptable.

On July 4, 2011, the defendant entered into a sales contract with the victim for forest land of this case. At the time, the defendant and E trade the forest land of this case.