A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant around October 15, 2014, from “D” located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Victim E gives a right to operate a store, which differs from KRW 40 million. The F, currently operating a store, is expected to produce it immediately.

F. He will show F and give him the right to operate a store.

“.....”

However, in fact, on September 21, 2014, the Defendant had already leased money to F around September 21, 2014, KRW 15 million, monthly rent KRW 200,000, and the period of lease “not later than the date on which the business operation of D is completed” and leased tourist goods stores within the above D. Therefore, even though the victim did not have the intent or ability to operate the above D, the Defendant was able to make the victim a false statement as if he had the right to operate the said store upon the termination of the said lease agreement with F, thereby allowing the victim to have the right to operate the store.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received money from the victim to the post office account under the name of the Defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, G and F;

1. Each prosecutor's office and each protocol of the police interrogation of the accused (with regard to the questioning of the accused and the statement of theF);

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A real estate lease agreement;

1. Recording (Evidence List No. 27) The defendant and his defense counsel's defense counsel's defense of the defendant and his defense counsel's defense counsel's defense is an investment amount of KRW 40 million from the injured party, so there is no intention to acquire it, and thus

The argument is asserted.

However, in full view of the evidence of the judgment and the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, the above KRW 40 million is recognized as a fraud by deceiving a victim as if the defendant had the right to operate a store as stated in the judgment of the court.

Defendant

We do not accept the assertion of counsel.

① The victim’s statement is consistent, specific, and logical from the first investigative agency to this court.

Witness

G's legal statement is also consistent with this and is very specific.