A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant held a U.S. public accountant’s license, and served in the dispute resolution committee established from December 3, 2015 to April 30, 2016 for the purpose of publishing tax-related books.

1. On November 30, 2015, the Defendant, at the office of the representative director E of the victim-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) in the five-story building D building in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), false statement was made that “E requires KRW 100,000,000 as agreed money by assaulting his/her friendship,” and the parent’s property cannot be commercialized at this time, and the parent’s house will be sold to him/her if the company provides the loan by one month.”

However, in fact, since the defendant has already borne a large amount of debt, such as about 70 million won and has already been liable to the neighboring neighbors, it was thought that the above money was used for the purpose of paying the defendant's personal debt, etc., and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money normally to the victim company.

As such, on November 30, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the representative director E of the victim company, acquired money from the victim company to the bank account of the Defendant name with KRW 12 million.

2. Crimes against victim F;

A. On December 14, 2015, at the meeting room of the 2nd meeting room of the above company, the defrauded F, the executive director of the above company, “In a situation where it is not known that the son F, who was the executive director of the above company, is in a state of consciousness and consciousness, and if he did not receive the agreement amounting to KRW 100 million by the date of the payment, Kaa is bound by her, and her house was sold at her house and made a part of the agreement with her down payment, but a part of the agreement was insufficient, he/she would immediately receive the intermediate payment of her house,

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, on the grounds stated in Paragraph 1, the Defendant was thought to use the above money for the purpose of personal debt repayment, etc. of the Defendant.