A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On June 23, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and was released on March 30, 2017 at the Seoul East Eastern District Court, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on June 22, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

On May 11, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, stating that “The Defendant would deposit funds that will take over a corporation that will take over the Plaintiff’s primary complex site D (E site in the Southern City; hereinafter “D site”) into account in advance as deposit money.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to receive the right of vicarious sale from the victim even if he received the acquisition fund from the enforcement company corporation due to the failure of the execution company operated in around 2007 or the failure to repay the debt in bad credit until now.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received a total of KRW 70,000,000 from the victim on May 11, 2018, and KRW 12,000,000 on May 14, 2018, and KRW 40,000 on June 5, 2018.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, received property from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A witness C's written contract for the sale of the legal statement, deposit statement, evaluation result of personal credit information, and previous records shown in his/her full certificate: Application of criminal records, etc. inquiry report (A), investigation report (reficiant power and attachment of same power judgment);

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes

1. The defendant does not make a false statement as if he could not have the right to sell in lots with the intent of deceiving the defendant;

(2) The victim was aware of the economic situation of the defendant and believed the possibility of giving the right to sell in lots, notwithstanding such circumstances.