A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

Around October 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E in the D office located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that “Around October 2008, the Defendant held 3,000 shares out of the F forest in the city of the Government of the Republic of Korea, and currently, the said real estate was set up a collateral security, thereby going beyond the auction. The Defendant would cancel the said collateral security and transfer the said shares.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to transfer the above real estate even if he received KRW 280 million from the victim, when the amount of delinquent tax was about KRW 60,000,000 from a person with bad credit standing who did not have certain occupation or income at the time.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was issued five times from October 8, 2008 to January 11, 201, a bill of exchange equivalent to KRW 280,000,000 as land price, to five times from October 8, 2008.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (to attach data submitted by a complainant);

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of the penalty, and reasons

1. The scope of the recommended sentence on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended sentence] general fraud types 2 (the amount of not less than 100 million won, the amount of less than 500 million won) and basic area (one year to 4 years) (no special person)

2. The Defendant, who received money from the victim, argued that there was no intention to commit fraud at the time. However, according to each of the above evidence in the judgment, the Defendant did not take any measures such as cancelling senior mortgage after receiving KRW 280 million from the victim as a bill of exchange, and eventually, since the real estate in this case was sold through voluntary auction, the above assertion is rejected, considering that the Defendant had a criminal intention to acquire the horses, as it was not true.

The fact that there was blood relationship between the defendant and the victim, the amount of damage did not reach an agreement with the victim.