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.

Punishment of the crime

On November 30, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, stating, “The Defendant would give the victim a right to a pro rata car exclusive in a pro rata building from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2014, as the Defendant is expected to open a pro rata building 7 to November 30, 2012, as the “F” will open a pro rata building 7 to November 30, 2012, with a deposit of KRW 20 million from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2014.”

However, the Defendant only paid KRW 5 million among KRW 100,000,000 among KRW 100,000,000,000, which was due to the lack of funds, and was unable to open a cover of the land for the property, and thus, there was no intention or ability to allow the victim to make the land for the property even if he received the deposit from the victim.

around November 21, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the victim to the I Account in G bank name.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Second police interrogation protocol regarding G: Police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement made in D among the police interrogation protocol (three times, questioning, etc.);

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Investigative report (the second execution of a financial warrant and telephone investigation), investigation report (the user of the amount of damage);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning details of transactions of entry and withdrawal;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's promise to the victim's right to own a pro rata to borrow KRW 20 million in return for promising the victim's right to own a pro rata land in the process of promoting a pro rata land project is true, but it is not possible to operate a pro rata land project due to the failure to enter the pro rata land, and that the defendant's deception by deceiving the victim even though there is no intention or ability to exercise the right to own a pro rata land from the beginning.

2. The subjective element of the judgment of fraud.