A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant asserted that: (a) the actual operator of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) and the representative director of H (hereinafter “H”) were the pro rata of the representative director of H (hereinafter “H”); (b) the Defendant actually exercised the authority to conclude a trade contract on the building in the Dae-gu, U.S., U.S. J. (hereinafter “H”).

On June 8, 2011, the Defendant had H employee M enter into a sales contract with H employee M by L’s brokerage in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu with the content of selling the said J’s building Nos. 107, 108, and 109 (hereinafter “instant shopping district”).

On February 27, 2012, the Defendant: (a) demanded the victim L, who arranged the above sales contract at G office located in Gwangju-si, to return the down payment received from the buyer F, the Defendant: (b) stated that “If the instant commercial building is in progress by public sale; (c) the ownership of the commercial building is recovered through a negotiated contract; or (d) is directly awarded by participating in the public sale procedure; and (c) the Defendant would first return the down payment to F, who paid short of nine million won, the Defendant would recover the ownership of the instant commercial building by the above method and transfer it to the victim any longer than the amount after recovering the ownership of the instant commercial building; and (d) written confirmation of the fact that “the Defendant waives the deposit and the premium for the commercial building and hand it over to the victim” was issued to the victim.

However, in fact, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant commercial building from the beginning through a negotiated contract or through a successful bid by participating in the public auction procedure, and did not have the intent or ability to transfer it to the victim. Moreover, the Defendant did not have the real right holder of the instant commercial building's deposit and premium.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and caused the victim to do so on March 27, 2012.