A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 201, 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around September 2011, the Defendant, at the Eju store operated by the victim D in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “Along with the construction of a new loan from Songpa-gu Seoul F, with a lack of money, he/she would sell the loan from the Seoul Songpa-gu F, with a loan of KRW 30 million, to repay the loan up to March 15, 201 or to collect the loan up to 401 as a substitute.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not own his own property or monthly income, and was newly constructing a sub-loan at the expense of H on the G’s land owned by Songpa-gu Seoul, but it is uncertain whether the construction was completed due to the dispute over the ownership attribution, and as such, the Defendant could not arbitrarily register the ownership transfer because the Defendant did not actually have invested the Defendant’s expenses. Therefore, even if he received the money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to sell the loan or pay the money.

Nevertheless, on October 11, 201, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was transferred from the victim as such to the national bank bank in the name of the Defendant as a loan deposit account, KRW 30 million.

2. On November 201, 2011, the defrauded made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant, at the place indicated in paragraph (1) around November 201,” “on the part of the victim, he/she would make repayment or loan 401, not later than March 15, 2012 if he/she borrowed money.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not own his own property or monthly income, and was newly constructing a sub-loan at the expense of H on the G’s land owned by Songpa-gu Seoul, but it is uncertain whether the construction was completed due to the dispute over the ownership attribution, and as such, the Defendant could not arbitrarily register the ownership transfer because the Defendant did not actually have invested the Defendant’s expenses. Therefore, even if he received the money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to sell the loan or pay the money.