A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 18, 2010, the Defendant stated to the effect that “D Real Estate” located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “Seoul Metropolitan Government F apartment 301, filed a lawsuit claiming the ownership transfer registration with the victim E, and won the entire decision in the first instance trial. The Supreme Court determined that “The registration of ownership transfer will be revoked, and that the land share division registration will be ordered by resolving all obligations related to land and buildings until April 18, 2012.”

However, the defendant did not have intention or ability to conduct the registration of transfer of ownership at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, fraudulently saw the victim as above, obtained KRW 180 million from the victim, namely, at the victim’s seat, as the down payment, and obtained KRW 100 million as the intermediate payment around January 12, 201, and obtained KRW 280 million in total from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by witnesses E in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Court rulings (Evidence records 16,47);

1. Application of statutes to a real estate sales contract, certificate, and a certified copy of each real estate register;

1. In a case where the pertinent provision of the criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, the reason for sentencing of the sentence of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] of general fraud [the special mitigation range] in the field of special mitigation (five months to two years] (special mitigation) in the second category of fraud [the victim] is also liable for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage (the decision of sentence] in the case where the victim is also liable for the occurrence of the crime or the extension of the damage, and the degree of the defendant's deception in October seems to be relatively weak. The victim also entered into a sales contract in a rush manner without closely examining the possibility of transfer registration of ownership in the desire to purchase the apartment at a price much less than the market price. The victim did not make any effort to recover damage in favor of the defendant, and the fact that the same criminal offense was committed twice the same kind of punishment is disadvantageous. It is so ordered as per Disposition