A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of corporation B who runs the business of developing and selling electric power resource housing.

On October 2015, the Defendant would sell to the victim E at the D's office located in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, for KRW 200 million.

“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, as to the above land, the application for voluntary auction to the Suwon District Court was filed on September 24, 2015, and the decision was made on September 25, 2015, and the defendant did not have the intent or ability to sell the above canal wells to the victim.

As such, the Defendant, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 20,000,000 from the victim on October 7, 2015, the Defendant acquired 15,000,000 from that time to December 18, 2015 as the sale price, and acquired the total of KRW 15,00,000 from December 18, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Entry of part of the witness D in the third public trial protocol;

1. Each statement made by the witness E, I and J among the trial records in the fourth and fifth trial records;

1. A certificate of all registered matters;

1. A statement of account transaction, a written contract for sale in lots, a certificate of cash custody, G canals sales contract [the deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that duty to observe each other in relation to property transaction widely, and the deception by omission refers to such passive acts that a person subject to duty of disclosure under the law does not know that the other party was absent from mistake. If it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of the fact in light of the empirical rule of general transactions, it is legally obligated to notify that fact in light of the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3263, Dec. 8, 1998, etc.). The defendant is the defendant.