A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Criminal facts

On November 22, 2013, the defendant was sentenced to three years in Seoul High Court to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the judgment was finalized on February 27, 2014.

[2012 Highest 1862]

1. On December 14, 2010, the Defendant in breach of trust sold 101,10,104,112 out of the above stores to the victim I (hereinafter “H”) at the “H” office, a real estate investment consulting firm in the operation of the Defendant in Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which is the real estate investment consulting firm in the operation of the Defendant, for the purchase price of KRW 101,102,102, 103, 104, 111, and 112, six stores with the fixed deposit amount of KRW 150,000,000,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 15,50,000,000,000,000 won. However, this part of the indictment was stated as “102,103,111,000 won after being awarded a successful bid and the victim was entitled to receive the remainder of the contract directly paid from the purchase price.

Under the above contract, the Defendant received a total of KRW 100 million from the victim as the down payment twice on December 13 and 15, 2010, and KRW 150 million as the intermediate payment on December 24, 2010. On December 24, 2010, the victim paid KRW 94,372,00 as the successful bid price for the above store No. 102 and 103, and the Defendant received KRW 344,372,00 from the victim as the purchase price for the above store.

On December 15, 2010, the Defendant received a successful bid of 101,104, and 112 among the above stores. At the same time, the Defendant received the payment of KRW 155,628,00 from the victim of the transaction balance, and at the same time, transferred the ownership of the above 101,104, and 112, or demanded the said store to transfer the ownership of the said store after receiving a loan within the said remaining limit of the transaction balance even if he received a loan as a security for the said store. As such, the Defendant, the said store seller, was obligated to transfer the ownership of the said store according to a contract with the victim.