A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fraud against the victim C is acquitted. It is so decided.

Punishment of the crime

On February 20, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Suwon District Court on February 20, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 28, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

"2013 Highest 1616"

1. Fraud;

A. On March 2008, the Defendant: (a) at Pyeongtaek-si, the Defendant: (b) stated that “The victim D and E completed 1 bonds of a detached house at Pyeongtaek-si International University; (c) he completed 1 bonds again; and (d) he may collect money from the Plaintiff after the university. If 50 million won is paid as land purchase contract, and (d) he will use the house as land purchase contract amount and sell it after 3 to 4 months, thereby leaving a profit of 70%; and (e) caused the victims to transfer KRW 50 million to the account of the landowner F on March 25, 2008 in the victim’s name.”

From March 25, 2008 to March 30, 2008, the Defendant returned the above KRW 50 million from F to September 5, 2008 on the ground that the contract does not run well, and again, the Defendant again stated, on September 5, 2008, that “The Defendant would use the above KRW 50 million as design costs in purchasing and developing Pyeongtaek-si G forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”).

However, the above 50 million won was thought to be used at another construction site, and there was no intention or ability to use it as design expenses for the victims.

Nevertheless, as above, the defendant deceiving the victims, and acquired the pecuniary benefits of 50 million won from the victims.

B. Around September 5, 2008, the Defendant stated that “the business promotion expenses need to be KRW 50 million to develop the forest of this case” to the victim D and E in Pyeongtaek-si.

However, at the time, even if the defendant was delivered 50 million won from the victims in excess of his/her obligation, he/she was thought to be used for his/her personal obligation, living expenses, etc., and did not have any intention or ability to use the forest of this case

Nevertheless, the defendant is the victims as above.