A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. The Defendant of the 2013 Highest 3248 [2013 Highest 3248] is a person who works as a brokerage assistant from the 1st floor D real estate of Daegu C

The Defendant stated L in the bill of indictment in the Gyeonglbuk-gun E, but in the records, it is clear that it is a clerical error in E, F, and G three lots, and entered into a sales contract with H, I, and J on July 26, 2010 for selling the above land at KRW 270 million with the victim K and the purchase price, and agreed to complete the division of the jointly-owned property and the transfer registration of ownership for the above land.

However, among the owners of the above land, M, N, andO did not agree to the division of co-owned property, so the defendant could not complete the division of co-owned property and the registration of transfer of ownership for the above land as agreed upon by the victim.

On August 25, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement with the purport that “The Defendant would make a transfer of three million won as he/she needs to change a cemetery within the above land to the Victim K” (hereinafter “D”) on August 25, 2010.

However, the defendant not only did not have the intention or ability to obstruct the cemetery but also thought that he would use the money received from the victim for personal living expenses, not for the relocation of the cemetery.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 3 million won from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant in the name of the victim in terms of the funeral expenses.

B. On September 14, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If expenses are required to conduct a survey of purchased real estate, the Defendant will make a proposal from the balance if sent to the victim, it will make a survey of purchased real estate.”

However, it was thought not only that there was no intention or ability to measure real estate, but also that the money received from the victim was used for personal living costs, not for surveying.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the victim.