A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year for a crime set forth in the judgment of the defendant, and for six months for a crime set forth in the judgment.

(b).

Punishment of the crime

On December 24, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for embezzlement at the Seoul Central District Court on October 1, 2009, which became final and conclusive on January 1, 2009. On November 25, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced a suspended sentence of two years for a one-year term of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, which became final and conclusive on February 10, 201.

1. Around March 27, 2006 and around April 7, 2006, the defrauded did not pay the principal and interest of KRW 1.7 billion invested by the Victim H within the time limit, and the victim received a decision on November 16, 2006 on the provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal on the part of Suwon-si I, a project site where the Defendant promoted redevelopment in the Seoul Central District Court, for securing the claim.

On November 22, 2006, the Defendant told the victim of the victim's house of 101 Dong 302, Gangnam-gu, Seoul J. 101-dong 302 on November 22, 2006 that "in case of a provisional disposition on a project site, an apartment can not be sold within the year because it did not obtain an approval for parcelling-out. When the apartment is sold within the year, the provisional disposition to return the investment amount would have to be completed. When the sale of the apartment, the Defendant would refund the principal amount of KRW 1.7 billion and would pay the profit amount of KRW 600 million if the sale of the apartment reaches 80

However, in fact, the defendant did not have consulted with K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "K"), which is the contractor of the authorized apartment construction business in Suwon-gu I in order to determine how to pay the victim's investment in the event of the deposit of the purchase price. Moreover, since the payment of the PF loan borrowed from the new bank was urgent, the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the investment price and the profit as agreed even if the prohibition of the disposal of the above apartment site is revoked.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and forcing the victim to cancel the provisional injunction, thereby owning real estate property with no burden of the provisional injunction.