Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On September 27, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, and completed the enforcement of the sentence at the Seoul Central District Court on September 26, 2013. On July 3, 2015, the Seoul High Court sentenced two years of suspended execution to six months of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 14, 2016. On November 2, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced two years of suspended execution to eight months of imprisonment for fraud and became final and conclusive on February 23, 2017.

[ 범죄사실] 피고인은 2015. 10. ~ 12. 경 수원시 영통 구에 있는 ‘C’ 사무실에서 피해자 D에게 ‘ 자신이 E 교회 명의로 경기도 파주시 F 외 6 필지 17,003㎡( 이하 ‘ 이 사건 토지’ 라 함 )에서 장 묘단지 개발사업을 하려고 하는데, 이미 이 사건 토지의 실제 소유자인 G 과 사이에 위 토지에서 자신이 위 사업을 하는 것에 대해 협의를 하고 그 동의를 다 받아 놨다.

First of all, if a project fund of KRW 30 million is invested, it is provided with money to the land owner and developed part of KRW 1010 square meters (306 square meters), such as F, etc. among the land of this case, to distribute the proceeds from sale after being given priority to the land owner. It is explained that “The purpose of development is already shared through several consultations about whether to sell and sell land with G and land, and there is no problem in the transfer procedures at all times in our country,” and “no problem in the authorization and permission at the time of development of a funeral complex: there is no problem in the authorization and permission: (the confirmation by the government office in charge of the Si/Gu office in Pakistan)” were presented on December 1, 2015, and the victim believed the explanation.

However, in fact, the Defendant responded to the purport that there was no consent or consultation on the execution of the funeral complex development project from the G owner of the instant land by the Defendant, and that there was no problem of obtaining the authorization or permission from the department in charge of selling the instant land without the confirmed consent of the landowner.