A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On September 14, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E at the D Real Estate Real Estate Agent Office located in C at the macro-si on September 14, 2012, stating that “A tenement house is being built on the F land at the large city. If the sale in lots is offered with the construction fund of KRW 100 million, the sale in lots is equivalent to KRW 170,000,000,000.”

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to sell the above apartment house to the victim normally even if the construction of the above apartment house was completed, because the defendant had a considerable debt to the several cooperatives and individual debtors at the time.

On the same day, the Defendant received KRW 6 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of H Co., Ltd., and KRW 94 million from the Suhyup Bank Account of the said company.

Accordingly, the defendant was delivered KRW 100 million by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to E, I, and J;

1. A complaint;

1. Investigation reports and investigation reports (for reference, the details of transactions of K deposit and withdrawal);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written certifications, written certifications, and full certificates of registered matters;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the same Act for the crime committed by the Defendant was around May 2012, the Defendant: (a) did not have the same criminal records except for the suspension of indictment at the prosecution once on one occasion; and (b) the Defendant formulated and implemented a plan to acquire money from the victim initially.

In the situation where money is needed to respond to the demands of another construction business operator in charge of interior works of the apartment house that he has promoted, it seems that the victim borrowed money from the victim without notifying the victim of such situation in compliance with the principle of trust and good faith; most of the money acquired through deception is used as actual construction cost, and it seems that the degree of personal gain of the defendant is not significant; part of the damage amount was deposited.