A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 20, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim F to lease KRW 50 million and KRW 200,000,000,000,000 to the Fund in terms of the housing unit E in Seongdong-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, with the Defendant’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s wife

However, on November 25, 201, the Defendant was the bad credit holder at the time, and on the housing above, the lower credit amounting to KRW 650 million in the name of the Saemaul Depository in the name of the Sung-nam, Sung-nam, Kim Jong-nam, and around August 28, 2013, the lower credit amounting to KRW 250 million in the amount of the claim amount under the name of the corporation acquiring the right to collateral security on August 28, 2013 was set, respectively. Since the market price of the above housing was approximately KRW 80 million, the Defendant did not have the ability or intent to pay the said deposit to the victim even if the lease term expires.

Nevertheless, the Defendant entered into the above lease contract without notifying the victim of the establishment of the right to collateral security as above in the above house, and received KRW 28 million in check and cash from the injured party in the Defendant’s residence located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu around September 23, 2013 as the deposit money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of a protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police of the F;

1. Documents evidencing that there was no intention to commit fraud by the defendant and his/her defense counsel among the written complaint;

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant used part of the deposit received from the injured party as the successful bid deposit, and the considerable portion of the bid price (a.0 billion won) was the same as a simple plan to receive the loan from the lending institution after paying the said down payment, and thus, there is no intention or ability to return the instant deposit.