A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the facts charged are acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was engaged in mediating the removal of buildings and the sale of scrap metals.

1. On July 10, 2012, the Defendant concluded a false statement to the victim G on July 10, 2012, stating that “The Defendant would give advance payment of KRW 100 million to the Cheongwon who manages the building in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with respect to the removal of filial building in Seocho-gu, Seoul.”

However, in fact there was no intention or ability to receive the above removal works, and there was no intention to use the above money for the purpose of the contract for the removal works.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100 million from the victim, under the pretext of advance payment of the contract for removal works.

2. On July 12, 2012, the Defendant entered into a false contract with the victim G on July 12, 2012, 2012, stating that “The Defendant would enter into a contract with the victim G to purchase scrap metal and non-ferrouss coming from the construction of (main) Mai-gu H building in Gwangju Northern-gu and its site.”

However, the facts do not conclude the contract with the above (main) construction, but rather conclude the contract with the (I) who purchased the scrap metal from the above site from the Sungdo construction, and there was no intention or ability to return the sales proceeds of the scrap metal, etc. to the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received from the victim the total sum of KRW 100 million on July 19, 2012, and KRW 250 million on July 20, 2012, the sum of KRW 150 million on July 20, 2012 from the victim’s national bank account under J.

3. The Defendant, at the above F office on July 23, 2012, told the victim G to the effect that “If the Sungdo Construction employee lends KRW 25 million to Sungdo Construction employee, he/she would have repaid the electric wires owned by Sungdo Construction with the money to be repaid.”

However, the facts did not lend the above money to the Sungdo Construction employee, but the defendant had the intention to use it, and there was no intention or ability to pay the money to the victim.

The defendant.