A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 6, 2012, the Defendant explained the victim E at the D office located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the victim E about 1001 of the F building 1001 in the name of the said company on February 6, 2012, and saying, “Any other person intends to enter into a contract with the victim about 1001, which would give the said other person a fee of KRW 20 million, and would allow the said person to enter into a lease contract on the said building, which would change the fee of KRW 7 million.”

However, there was no fact that other person had tried to enter into the above 1001 contract with the defendant, and there was no authority to enter into the above 1001 lease contract on the ground that the defendant was only a relative with G, who was the president of the above D, and was not a lessor, and therefore did not have the authority to enter into the above 1001 lease contract.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, deceiving the victim and deceiving it from the victim, and up to 5 million won in the Defendant’s agricultural bank account around February 14, 2012, in terms of fees from the victim, and the same year.

3. Around 20.20.20.2 million won and a total of 7 million won deposited in the same account and acquired it by fraud.

2. On June 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on the Horse train operated by the victim E located in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building No. 1001, on the early June 2012, 2012, the Defendant stated that, “In order to prevent this building from filing a suit, the Defendant provided expenses and food necessary to prevent the filing of a request for a name-based lawsuit,” a promissory note paid by the victim to the lessor under the name of the deposit deposit is not paid to the lessor; and (b) the Plaintiff filed a suit for a name-based lawsuit.”

However, in fact, the defendant used the money received from the victim as a living cost, and thought that the victim will be able to take the food provided by the victim, and only he had a friendly relationship with G, which was the lessor of the above 1001, and there was no intention or ability to prevent I from taking the scambling lawsuit because there was no relationship with I, the lessor of the above 101.

Nevertheless, the defendant is above.