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

Punishment of the crime

[2015 Highest 769]

1. On January 2012, the Defendant against the victim B made a false statement to the victim B of the site development project for the factory site in Sejong-si, the end of January 201, stating that “The victim B would purchase the E-Japanese land owned by D clans around this site and create a large-scale industrial complex. If the Plaintiff invested KRW 100 million as the purchase fund for the land in the party president E is necessary, 200,000 won per square, 20,000 won per square, and 3-440,000,000 won per square, after the creation of the industrial complex at the latest within 2 years.”

However, in fact, the part that “the three-dimensional industrial location is no longer the whole quantity of the supply plan due to the project that is being promoted at the time,” in the indictment does not recognize.

The development of an industrial complex was difficult, and there was only a vague indemnity to purchase the above E- daily land without a specific plan in the absence of capital, and thus, even if the defendant receives money from the victim as the investment money, he did not have an intention or ability to pay the proceeds promised to develop the industrial complex after using it as the land purchase fund.

On February 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received KRW 80 million from the G Bank Account in the name of the victim’s wife F, to the H Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant; (c) KRW 10 million from the corporate bank account in the name of the victim to the said H Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant; and (d) around February 4, 2012 from the J Union Account in the name of the victim to the said H Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received property amounting to KRW 100 million in total from the victim.

The indictment is a “acquisition of property benefits,” but it is recognized as above.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6256 Decided December 9, 2010).2.