Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 4, 2013, the Defendants stated that “(i) the victim F will be able to operate a restaurant at the beginning of the I construction site, which was newly constructed at the Si/Gu H in the E Park located at the Seocho-si, Seocho-si, Si Do.” The Defendants said that “The payment will be made.”

However, in fact, the Defendants did not have the right to grant the victim the right to operate the restaurant as the box of the said new construction site. Therefore, even if they received the payment from the injured party, they did not have the intent or ability to allow the injured party to operate the restaurant.

On September 5, 2013, the Defendants received each transfer of KRW 20 million from the account under the name of the Defendant (J) to the account under the name of the Defendant, and KRW 3 million from the account under the name of K to the account under the name of K (L) from the damaged party, and Defendant B acquired the pecuniary benefits of KRW 10 million from the end of October 2013 to June 7, 2014, that the injured party leased under the condition of KRW 400,000,000 per month rent and KRW 400,000,000 from the end of June 7, 2014.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim to acquire property and property benefits from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness F, N, andO;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on consignment operation contracts, details of passbook transactions, M apartment lease contracts, transaction transfer slips, stocks and management rights transfer contracts;

1. Relevant Articles 347 (1) and 330 of the Criminal Act: Defendants who choose to commit the crime;

1. The Defendants on probation: the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion on Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act asserted that Defendant A had the authority to grant the right to operate the restaurant to the victim as the actual implementer of the new construction of this case, and thus, there was no deception of the victim. However, it is sufficient to recognize the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case in full view of each evidence presented in the summary of the evidence above.