A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at a real estate consulting company called “C”, was a person who was working as a real estate telemast in the real estate consulting company, and around 2008, the Defendant became aware of the victim by soliciting the victim D (V, 78 years old) to make an investment in the real estate located in Gyeyang-gun.

Around January 20, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The principal shall be returned from the proceeds of the purchase of the land immediately after the purchase of the land if he/she borrowed money to the victim in the vicinity of Gangnam-gu Seoul.”

However, in fact, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not intend to use the money for the purchase of real estate, but did not intend to use the money for the purchase of real estate. At the time, the Defendant’s income was entirely KRW 1,00,000 per month when the hospital physician receives the money, while the Defendant was in arrears with approximately KRW 24,00,000,000, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant makes a false statement as above and the defendant's 10 million won on the same day as the defendant's agricultural bank account under the pretext of borrowing money from the victim for investment in real estate;

2. The delivery of KRW 15 million around 23. Around the same year, and continuing to be made.

3. Around 26.26. Around the same day, in the vicinity of Gangnam-gu Seoul, five million won was delivered to the said Agricultural Cooperative account on the same day to the effect that the victim would be repaid as soon as he/she lends five million won to the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 30 million from the victim three times in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the prosecutor's statement of the defendant D's court statement;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The confession and reflective nature of the defendant, the scale of the damage in this case, the degree of recovery of damage in this case, etc.);

1. Probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;