A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 27, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for breach of trust at the Seoul Central District Court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 28, 2016. On October 29, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for embezzlement and two years of suspended execution, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 6, 2015.

From around December 2012, 2005, the Defendant worked as a brokerage assistant at the mutual infinite office in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1’s apartment office, and operated D’s mutually authorized brokerage office from around December 2010 to the first floor of the same building.

On July 2010, the Defendant, the Defendant owned the Defendant, was aware of the Victim E (name F before the opening of the name) on the lease of the said C No. 1st 901, which was the Defendant.

The defendant around October 2010, around the above victim's residence, there are many officetels that the victim operates a certified broker office in the Republic of Korea on behalf of the owner, and there are many persons who intend to rent an officetel.

In four names, the owner of an officetel and the owner of a deposit for one million won per household have entered into a lease contract under the conditions of KRW 800,000 per month, and then the tenants who need to move into the two months or month will hold office in the amount of KRW 1.2 million per month.

If so, the difference will be KRW 400,000,000 which will be divided into one half of one half of one half.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false statement.”

However, most tenants who rent short-term officetels at the time were operators of commercial sex acts establishments, and it was practically impossible for the Defendant to hold office all the officetels leased with the money that the Defendant received from the injured party because regulation of commercial sex acts establishments by investigation agencies was serious, and even if the Defendant received money from the injured party, it was thought that some of them would be used to transfer the money to other creditors or to use it as the living cost of the Defendant, and there was no intention to rent the total amount of officetels.

The defendant.