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

【Criminal Power】 On December 1, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on April 26, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 12, 2014, which was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution for fraud in the same court on July 4, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 24, 2015, which was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution for fraud in the same court on February 11, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 26, 2016, by having been sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, ten months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution.

【Criminal Facts】 The Defendant is a substantial operator of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

On June 24, 2011, the Defendant, at the office B located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, concluded that “The construction of a newly built multi-household house in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E-Ba is not possible due to the lack of money.” The Defendant, in lieu of payment for the construction work, concluded that E-Ba 2 bonds in advance are purchased at KRW 280,000,000,000,000 in lieu of payment for the construction work, is responsible and completed within three months and will sell F and G.” The Defendant drafted the sales contract for E-Ba f and G between the victim and the victim.

However, in the course of implementing the construction of the above E-Ba on December 3, 2010, the Defendant agreed to receive 11 loans from the owner of the building in lieu of the construction cost. However, around June 201, the construction cost had been discontinued at approximately 60-70% due to the lack of construction cost, and even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, it was thought that it will be used to repay other debts, not to use it as the construction cost, but to use it as the construction cost, and there was no intention or ability to complete E-Ba as it was no longer available to the victim, and therefore, the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to sell 2 loans normally to the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it from the victim.