A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 201, the Defendant, in the vicinity of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the ground of fraud and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, heard that the victim D acquired the ownership of the land and the building located in Yan-gu E and the building on the ground thereof, at the time of Ansan-gu, through the auction procedure for real estate rent, filed an application for a real estate delivery order against the possessor claiming a lien, but dismissed

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not an attorney-at-law, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “A is a person to professionally solve the problem of lien, who is more capable of being employed than a lawyer, which can solve this problem of lien, and thus, I believe B and leave the case in question.”

However, even if the defendant is not qualified as a lawyer and receives money from the victim due to lack of legal knowledge, he/she did not have the intention or ability to resolve the above real estate-related lien dispute.

On August 201, 201, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim in such a way as above, received KRW 2 million from the victim as the starting money to resolve the right of retention dispute. At that time, the Defendant: (a) prepared a legal document, such as an application for compulsory execution (application for an order of delivery of real estate) with respect to the said real estate; (b) handled legal affairs, such as filing an application for an order of delivery of real estate or an application for grant of execution clause; and (c) handled legal affairs, such as preparing legal documents in receipt of money and valuables, from the victim, until January 20, 2012, by deceiving the victim seven times in total as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table; and (d) handled legal affairs, such as preparing documents

2. Around September 21, 2011, the Defendant embezzled KRW 15 million for personal purposes while receiving refund of KRW 169,000,000 for the enforcement labor cost in the case of compulsory execution against delivery of real estate (No. 1869) on the said real estate that was prepaid by the victim D at the office of the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch Branch, and then embezzled it.