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

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

Punishment of the crime

[2019 Highest 426] On January 28, 2018, the Defendant said, “E” at a dance room in the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan area, which is operated by the Defendant, that “If 2,400,000 won is paid to the Victim F who visited for the production of a dance hall, the Defendant would produce and give the wintering place one punishment, one punishment, one punishment, one punishment, four punishment, one punishment, one punishment, and two punishment, one punishment, one punishment, within 15 days.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was liable for the amount equivalent to KRW 200 million due to the Internet gambling, and the head office "E" bears the obligation for goods in excess of KRW 100 million, so even if he was paid the fixed amount from the victim, he was thought to be used in paying the individual debt, and did not have the intent or ability to produce a dance meeting for the sake of the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 2,400,000 from the victim, and received KRW 8,840,000 from the victim to March 31, 2018, as stated in the “crime List” from March 31, 2018.

[2019 Highest 2410] Around August 11, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim limited liability company and Gwangju Nam-gu D ground buildings, which is set forth as the deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 4 million, lease period from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018. On the same day, E transferred KRW 30 million to the Gwangju bank account in the name of the victim company as the deposit money.

As above, when it was difficult for the Defendant to operate the store in the process of leasing the building in the name of Gwangju Nam-gu D in the name of the company, and operating the store in the name of the "Eju store", the Defendant did not delegate the right to receive the lease deposit from the company E, and as such, as if he had the right to receive the lease deposit, the Defendant did not have the right to receive the lease deposit, the Defendant’s employees H of the above victim company “