A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 25, 2014, the Defendant “2015 Highest 4961,” the Defendant, at the victim D’s house located in Masung-si around November 25, 2014, made an investment if there is any money to be invested, 30-40% is left when 50-60% is left and less than 50-60% is left at the victim D’s house located in Masung-dong. If Mari makes an investment in auction on a building in Maho-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si

“The purpose of “ was to make a false statement.”

However, fact was that E, which the defendant introduced as friendly to the victim, was not a defendant's friendship, and that E was an investment in a building in the Howon-si Ho-si Ho-dong, Suwon-si, and it did not verify whether E actually made an investment in the above building. Even if the defendant was given money under the name of investment from the damaged party, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the investment money that the defendant promised to use to pay the money borrowed from the land to E.

Around November 25, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 15,000,00 from the damaged party’s account via the Agricultural Cooperative (F) account in the name of the Defendant and received KRW 73,000,000 from that time through December 24, 2014, in total, 10 times in the following manner: (a) the Defendant received KRW 73,00,000 from the damaged party, from that time to December 24, 2014.

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

2. “The Defendant, on May 2015, 2015, 2015, 5467, to a place where a place where a police officer cannot be identified, shall be called a phone to the victim G, and “the Defendant shall be engaged in any work related to the auction of real estate by us.”

In making an investment, a false statement was made to the effect that “I am dyna to return the investment by adding not only the principal but also the 40% profits.”

However, fact was that E, which the defendant introduced as friendly, was not the kind of the defendant, and whether E actually performed a work related to the auction of real estate.