A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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, from among those who are not able to receive a loan from a bank that wants to obtain real estate as collateral, the Defendant did not have the ability to obtain a loan even if he received a consulting service contract deposit for a bank loan. The Defendant, while emphasizing the fact that he was an former bank employee, received a down payment by appraising the higher amount of real estate and making it possible to obtain a loan, and received the down payment, and then received the request for the return of the down payment as the bank loan did not disappear, and received the request for the return of the down payment, based on the provision of the consulting service contract, “The down payment belongs to B (the Defendant’s meaning)” (such as the reasons why the client was not mentioned at the time of the consulting service contract at all at all at the time of the consulting service contract (such as the submission of the document, such as the construction permit necessary for the loan, or the reason that the merchant of the real estate subject to the security loan does not cooperate in the appraisal, etc.) and acquired the down payment by means of consulting law that did not return the down payment.

1. On November 4, 2010, the Defendant entered into a consulting services contract with the victim E regarding the loan of a bank, and even if receiving the down payment, he/she did not have the intent or ability to obtain the bank loan from the victim. The Defendant, even though having no intent or ability to obtain the bank loan, would arrange the victim to arrange the loan necessary for the business in progress on the 28 parcel of land F in Gwangju-si. The Defendant, “The amount of 6 million won as the down payment for consulting services would be changed to 32 billion won with the above land.” The Defendant, who received 6 million won from the victim, obtained the loan from the victim.”

2. On July 29, 2010, the Defendant was the victim G at a coffee shop where the trade name in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu cannot be known.