The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years of imprisonment.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant against the victim C was delegated by the D representative director E, a foundation preparing for the stock farm business in Gangwon-do in 201, with the power of proxy, establishment permission, business registration certificate, development permission, etc., and had a guaranty insurance policy for the performance of the stock farm in Seoul Guarantee Insurance.

In October 2013, the Defendant issued a false statement to the victim C, stating that “A corporation that is in charge of the duties of raising funds within Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, carries on a swimming pool business in the land of 700,000 square meters in Gangwon-do, and the appraisal of the land would have an appraisal cost of 130 billion won and there is no necessary appraisal cost. If the Defendant had an appraisal of the land of 200,000 won in the appraisal cost, he would return 200,000 won of the appraisal cost to the foundation which was kept in custody by obtaining a guaranty insurance policy under the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Guarantee Insurance Policy after appraising the land of Chuncheon, and by financing it as a collateral, return of the appraisal cost of 20,000 won and incur a lot of profits.”

However, there was not only no construction contract for the land for the stock farm, but also there was no plan for the construction work, so there was no way to issue the performance (advance payment) guaranty insurance policy, and even if the performance (advance payment) guaranty insurance policy was issued, the reason for the payment of insurance money arises when the construction company did not properly perform the construction work even after receiving the advance payment from the ordering person. Therefore, the insurance policy alone was not possible, and the defendant did not have an intention or ability to return the investment money from another person within a month even if the construction company received the advance payment from the ordering person.

As such, the Defendant deceivings the victim C to do so and is subject to appraisal fees, etc. from the victim.