A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, along with B (Death on January 31, 2014), received a public parking lot operating right and received investment money from others under the pretext of leasing the above parking lot operating right to others.

On July 1, 2013, the Defendant, within the main point of “E” of the operation of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu C Victim D, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, operated the H fee parking lot for the victim D and the victim F.

If deposit 200 million won and rent 50 million won have been paid in advance between 200 million won and 3 years of the contract period, this parking lot is leased for three years, and it is false that he/she will be responsible for the rent and receive the profit of 13 million won per month during the lease period.

However, on January 31, 2013, the Defendant had already leased the operating right of the above parking lot to I, and thus, even if concluding a lease contract with the victims, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the profits that the above parking lot has been given or promised every month.

On July 1, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims as above, obtained KRW 125 million in cash and in cash under the name of the lease fee for the parking lot operation of this case from the victim D on July 1, 2013, and obtained KRW 125 million in check and cash from the victim F on the same day, respectively, and acquired KRW 250 million in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect to the prosecution or the police (including theF statement part) against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to I;

1. The written statement made by the police against D [the defendant who denies the criminal intent of defraudation and deceptions himself/herself against the network B], but the defendant was accused.

The part asserted is merely about the reason for the acquisition of the instant parking lot in the deceased B, and it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 250 million from the victims at the time of receiving double profits in addition to I in the situation where the Defendant directly operates the instant parking lot or leased the instant parking lot to J, etc., and the benefit structure is known. Therefore, the evidence of the judgment is examined.