Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

2016 Gohap 367 (Defendant A)

1. In around 2008, the Defendant, including fraud with the victim F, was in charge of the Itel (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) newly built on the land owned by the Plaintiff, including H, located in Nam-gu, Gwangju, and two parcels of land (hereinafter “the instant officetel”).

When the construction work at the construction site was interrupted due to a shortage of construction funds, the Defendant agreed on February 2012 to proceed with and sell the whole of the instant officetel under the name of J Co., Ltd. (K Co., Ltd. after the change; hereinafter “J”), the representative director, and to complete the completion and completion inspection of the officetel construction work by July 31, 2012, the owner of the land and the private person executing the construction work (hereinafter “M”) and the private-use L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”), etc. (hereinafter “the change”), and to pay KRW 1.288 billion to H, etc. as land price and transfer the ownership to M.

On March 20, 2012, the Defendant would pay the Victim F, who operates N in the construction site of the instant officetel as the completion of the construction work, “If the instant officetel, waterproof, painting and painting construction and the construction site of the instant officetel, the construction cost of KRW 315 million will be paid to the Defendant F, who operates N in the construction site of the instant officetel.”

If the cost of the construction is not paid, officetels will be placed in lieu of it.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in order to complete the instant officetel, the Defendant had to prepare up to KRW 3.4 billion for the construction cost, including the construction cost to be paid to the victim, but did not have any financial ability, and there was no ability to provide funds of KRW 3.4 billion even though it was a situation where the Defendant received investments from another person or borrowed money from another person to prepare the whole construction cost. Therefore, even if the victim is performing the construction work, the Defendant

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and that is, the victim's expenses incurred on March 20, 2012 are not worth KRW 315 million, flooded, and flooded.