The first-class crime of the judgment of the defendant, the second-class crime of the judgment, shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the first-B and the third-class crime of the judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On June 8, 2006, the Defendant, at the Seoul Central District Court, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in one year and six months for fraud, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 16th of the same month.

1. Fraud to victims E;

A. On June 24, 2005, the Defendant told the victim E to the effect that “Around 2003, the Plaintiff used to construct the F building, and at the same time, did not pay the said money due to the dispute arising from the relationship of lease with the merchants of the F building, the Defendant would settle the legal dispute with the said money and pay the said money within 2-3 months if the said money was additionally lent KRW 30 million.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had previously been unable to repay the said KRW 120 million in normal terms from the victim, and the said FF building had too many existing bank loans secured by this, so it was difficult to grant additional loans. In addition, there was no intention or ability to repay the said loans to the victim even if it borrowed money from the victim because of the extreme financial situation, such as the amount of debts to others exceeded KRW 2.3 billion.0 billion.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired it from the above victim by receiving 30 million won from the above victim to the deposit account in the name of the defendant for the purpose of borrowing from the above victim.

B. On November 21, 2006, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would withdraw an auction and pay the above borrowed money and interest within three months from the sale of the building, if it is necessary to prevent the auction because the building of the GGGGGGGGGGGG was put on auction.” The Defendant borrowed this money.”

However, at the time, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the above borrowed money as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and deceivings it from the above victim 50 million won as the borrowed money around November 24, 2006.