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

Punishment of the crime

On February 16, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court, and that judgment became final and conclusive on the 24th of the same month.

피고인은 성명 불상의 토지 브로커인 일명 ‘C’ 을 통하여 평택시 D의 소유자인 E을 대신할 성명 불상자를 소개 받아 마치 위 성명 불상자가 E 인 것처럼 피해자 F를 기망하여 토지 매매대금을 가로챌 것을 마음먹었다.

On July 24, 2009, when the trade names in the Sejong-dong, Suwon-si, Suwon-si are unknown, the defendant and the person who was unable to name the defendant met the victim at the restaurant, and the person who was unable to name the victim as if the victim was the victim E, and the defendant also prepared a trade contract with the victim for the above D land and received 33 million won as the down payment from the seat.

As a result, the defendant, in collusion with the above person who was unaware of his name, deceiving the victim, and received property from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Two-time protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A trade contract, a receipt, and a letter;

1. Previous records: References to inquiries, application of investigation reports (Attachment of the suspect A judgment) and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to treat concurrent crimes provided that the reason for sentencing under Article 39(1) is unfavorable: The crime of this case was committed even though there was a record of being punished as a crime of the same kind of law, and the circumstances favorable to the fact that no recovery of damage was made: It is so decided as per Disposition for the reason of equity in a case where the first head of the judgment with the crime of this case, which is concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code, is concurrent crimes.