A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

The defendant shall pay 180,000,000 won to the applicant for compensation by deceit.

3.2

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On September 9, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 19 of the same year.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 17, 2007, the Defendant: (a) was engaged in rice wholesale and retail business in his own name; and (b) around October 17, 2007, at the law firmF office located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C that “it is operating rice sales stores in Ansan, and monthly profits reach KRW 50,000.00.0 million. It is possible to impose KRW 550,000 per day a monthly net profit on the part of the Pedemb in the Pedemb, because the real estate owned by the Defendant can be punished for KRW 50,000 per annum as security at the Pedemb, the Defendant deposited the real estate in the Pedemb, with KRW 50,000 per year. The credit payment does not necessarily have to be paid in the auction procedure.”

However, in fact, in 2007, the annual income of the Defendant’s operation of the rice wholesale distribution business was not only more than KRW 40 million, but also the bank loan was more than KRW 60 million. At that time, rice farmers were scarbly with rice supply, so it was also difficult to operate the rice wholesale distribution business due to reduction of rice supply. It was in a situation where promissory notes and promissory notes issued as payment for the payment of the pre-existing debt, which was supplied as payment, and the victim was provided as security through the establishment of a collateral security right to the corporation, the rice supplier, the corporation, the rice supplier of the real estate, and the victim was supplied with rice equivalent to KRW 20 million from the above scarsan, and was supplied as credit from the above scarsan to pay the above debt, but there was no surplus if it was applied to the above debt

Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to cancel the above right of collateral by continuously paying the profits each month as agreed to the victim, or repaying the credit payment obligation to the above satisfy farming.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.