A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Punishment of the crime

On October 13, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud at the Incheon District Court on the 19th day of the same month, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 19th day of the same month.

"2017 Highest 2187"

1. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant may transfer the victim’s right to operate a restaurant to the victim at a restaurant located in the construction site of the Changwon-si, Changwon-si D apartment site operated by the Victim C at the Changwon-si, Masan-si. D apartment site where E is located.

The construction site can be transferred with the operating right of KRW 100 million from January 30, 2015 when commencing construction works.

The phrase “the phrase was false.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant did not at all confirm who actually has the right to operate the restaurant as the box of the F Corporation at the Hanam-si, and did not have any intention or ability to transfer the right to operate the restaurant to the victim because he did not have obtained permission from E to transfer the right to operate the restaurant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, received KRW 100 million, including KRW 40 million around October 31, 2014, KRW 50 million around November 1, 2014, and KRW 100 million around November 2, 2014, from the victim of the said construction site, to the corporate bank account (G) in the name of the Defendant.

2. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s right to operate a restaurant in KRW 160 million to the victim at a coffee shop that he/she is aware of the trade name near the H apartment construction site in the Guri-si, Guri-si. In addition, the Defendant transferred the right to operate the restaurant at H apartment construction site in KRW 160 million.

To conclude a transfer contract with E in the face of 60 million won as down payment.

“A false representation was made.”

However, at the time of fact, the defendant did not at all confirm who actually has the right to operate the restaurant as the box of the above construction site, and there was no intention or ability to transfer the right to operate the restaurant to the victim because he did not have the right to receive the transfer from E.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the victim as above.