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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant and E were those who worked in AO real estate located in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and were working in F and eight other persons around August 2010, the Defendant developed the land through the suspension work with respect to 8265 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and one nine other, the Plaintiff and E were in possession of the said owner’s certificate of personal seal and certificate of personal seal affixed to the said owner upon delegation of the duties to register the land again.

The Defendant and E were to borrow the instant land as collateral in order to raise funds for the Lone Building Project, which was in progress at the time, and around August 31, 2010, at the above real estate office around August 31, 2010, the Defendant and E were to borrow the instant land as collateral, and to pay the principal and interest to the victim V after 2-3 months, and to set the interest as five copies per month.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the Defendants did not have been delegated or consented to the establishment of the right to collateral security by the owners of the instant land.

Ultimately, the Defendant and E received 40 million won from the injured party on the same day through the account in the name of the head of the Defendant’s mother AP on the same day, and 30,350,000 won through the account in the name of E around September 1, 2010 (the prior interest 9.65 million won deduction) respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with E, deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving 7,350,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant and E;

1. Statement protocol of the police concerning V;

1. Application of a copy of passbook and transaction details statutes;

1. In the case of this case on the grounds of sentencing of punishment for a criminal offense, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, the victim still seems to have not agreed with the victim, and thus, the victim still sought punishment against the defendant, and the amount of damage is not significant.

However, the defendant has committed a series of crimes related to the instant case and similar time.