A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 3, 2014, the Defendant, at the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D's office, has a conflict of interest with the victim E, which operates within the right to vicariously sell the Songdo New City F and G complex facilities.

If a credit rating company makes an investment in the credit rating company I in lieu of the credit rating company I and the credit rating company I by paying a deposit amount of KRW 50 million to the credit rating company H, the credit rating company H concluded a mutual agreement with the credit rating company I to allow the credit rating company I to carry out the mutual agreement with the credit rating company and to make it possible for the credit rating company I to gain investment profits by concluding a mutual agreement with the credit rating company H.

However, the Defendant, at the time, was unable to pay KRW 500 million to the KCAB, which is the executor of the construction project for the above complex facilities, and there was no authority to grant the KCAB to sell the above complex facilities in lieu of the right to sell the facilities. Therefore, even if the Defendant had the victim make an investment in the manner of paying the deposit amount of KRW 50 million to the KCAB, it did not have the intent or ability to make the victim receive the investment return.

Nevertheless, the defendant, as mentioned above, received money from the injured party to transfer to the bank account (K) of H in the same day to the bank account (K) of H in the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, L and M;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. The complaint statement, the details of passbooks, the contract for the vicarious sale of lots, an investigation report (a service contract for the submission of a witness M) and the contract for the sale of lots by proxy (i.e., the situation acknowledged by each evidence as stated in the ruling, namely, the agreement for the vicarious sale of facilities by proxy with the company in charge of the settlement of disputes and N on November 16, 2013 and the agreement for the sale by proxy between the company in charge of the settlement of disputes and the company in charge of the settlement of disputes and the company in charge of the sale by proxy shall be 1.5 billion won as security deposit, and on November 21, 2013, the defendant, who is the representative director H of the company in charge of the settlement of disputes, shall deposit KRW 500 million out of the security deposit with the company in charge of the