A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

[The record of the crime committed by the Defendant before and after a repeated crime was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on April 28, 2005, and was released on September 29, 2006 and the parole period passed on November 20, 2006.

On October 7, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on December 10, 2009, and the judgment was finalized on December 10, 2009. On July 6, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment for fraud at the Suwon District Court, which became final and conclusive on September 30, 2010.

[2] Around May 2, 2009, the Defendant: (a) around May 22, 2009, at the coffee shop in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, decided to purchase the consent form for reconstruction prepared by the original resident to obtain permission for the implementation project of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Reconstruction apartment; (b) KRW 50 million from the partnership.

As down payment, 30 million won is required, the current 15 million won is secured, and the remainder of 15 million won is required.

The loan will be paid up to 30 million won by calculating the loan amount by two times, as the loan has been made after lending KRW 15 million, making the first building as security.

If the house reconstruction is implemented, it will be able to arrange all the reconstruction-related objects by being monopolyed from the real estate of the party.

“.........”

In addition, it is easy to call to the victim after one another, and "the amount of 20 million won out of the money to be paid to the head of the cooperative, which is late at present, is insufficient to bring down the down payment to 30 million won.

10 million won was prepared, which means that the remainder of 10 million won was loaned."

However, there is no particular property or income at the time, and there was no intention or ability to repay it in time, even if it is possible to actually implement the above reconstruction project or borrow money from the injured party because it was not in the situation of receiving the above super-building as collateral.

The Defendant, as such, deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, on May 22, 2009.