Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If a fine is not paid, 50,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 1, 2011, at the D office operated by the Defendant located in Gwangju City, the Defendant stated that “Although the new ownership of Gwangju City F, G, and H land is difficult to sell it, it would make it possible to sell it by transferring urban planning lines and obtaining permission for change of form and quality of land and permission for development activities.”

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to act on behalf of the victim, such as the transfer of urban planning lines on land owned by the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 10 million from the victim as the service cost to handle the service by acting on behalf of the victim, that is, by acquiring the service cost from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused (second time)

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A complaint (a statement of performance attached thereto, a promissory note);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant actually promoted his/her duties, but only became difficult to perform his/her duties due to procedural delay and other criminal cases of the Defendant, but does not have any intent and ability to perform his/her duties from the beginning, and denies the intention of the defrauded.

2. However, the Defendant alleged, however, that (i) although he was aware of about the transfer of urban planning lines, but it was judged difficult to perform them, and that he notified the victim thereof. However, the Defendant’s statement that the instant land is not subject to urban planning lines (No. 68 of the record) is difficult to believe, and (ii) the above F contains a development-restricted area, thereby dividing the parcel number.