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

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

On August 31, 2005, the defendant, "2012 Godan1685, the defendant, who was aware of the fact that D had resided in 30 million won of the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis, was issued a decision to commence the auction on August 31, 2005 with the victim's F residence located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, "I will receive the full amount of the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis" from the victim in the victim's F residence located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, with the victim "I will receive 40 million won of the deposit for auction on the face of the week, and will receive 40 million won of the deposit for auction on the face of the week." The victim was issued 40 million won as the deposit for auction on the same day.

Defendant failed to participate in the auction of the above 402, but around November 2005, the above 402 was awarded to another person. However, while the above 402 was kept to return the above 402 amount to the victim, the Defendant consumed it for personal purposes, such as business funds, around that time.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

On June 2012, 2012, the Defendant called the victim G who became aware of through the online club of the 2013 Highest 1479 (hereinafter “2013 Highest 1479”) to the effect that “if there is any surplus funds in the course of performing duties in securities in the future deposit, investment would be made in the foreign exchange transaction, and if there is any surplus funds in the course of performing duties in securities in the future deposit, foreign exchange transaction would be made 500,000 won and the principal would be repaid

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he was thought to use it as auction-related expenses and living expenses, etc., not to invest in foreign exchange transactions, and even if he borrowed money from the victim due to no particular property or income at the time, he did not have the intent or ability to repay it, and there was no fact that he had worked in securities at the future.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, received KRW 5 million from the victim around July 7, 2012 and KRW 5 million around August 7, 2012, and acquired it by deception.

Summary of Evidence

[2012 Highest 1685]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness F and D’s legal statement 1.