A woman in her 60s was sentenced to 15 years in prison by the Supreme Court on charges of causing 9.1 billion won in damages to villa lease tenants through no-capital gap investment (buying and selling with jeonse). Previously, she received a 12-year prison sentence in the first trial, which was increased to 15 years in the second trial.

The appearance of dwellings in downtown Seoul. This content is unrelated to the article. /Courtesy of News1

The Supreme Court's first division, under Chief Justice Noh Tae-ack, upheld the 15-year prison sentence in the second trial against Mr. Shin (62), who was indicted on charges of violating the Act on Control of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and obstruction of business on Dec. 12.

Mr. Shin registered as a housing rental business operator in March 2018 and was found to have repeatedly used tenant deposits to cover real estate purchase costs without using his own money or to repay other tenants' deposits in a scheme known as 'revolving debt.' Between July 2018 and February 2023, he acquired 27 newly built villas and officetels located in the metropolitan area including Seoul and Gyeonggi Province using this method. He is accused of embezzling approximately 9.177 billion won from 15 tenants (victims) and financial institutions, which includes 3.4 billion won in deposits, 3.6 billion won in housing loans, and 2 billion won in housing jeonse funds.

The first trial sentenced Mr. Shin to 12 years in prison last December. The first trial court noted, 'The crime was planned and organized, and almost no recovery of losses has occurred,' but added, 'Mr. Shin appears to regret his actions, albeit belatedly.' Both Mr. Shin and the prosecution appealed the first trial decision. Previously, the prosecution had sought a 20-year sentence for Mr. Shin.

In March, the second trial overturned the first trial decision and sentenced Mr. Shin to 15 years in prison. The second trial court stated, 'He exploited the jeonse deposit loan system for economic vulnerable people and youth housing welfare, disrupting the housing supply and rental market while undermining the trust of many good landlords,' and said, 'It is difficult to assess that his remorseful appearance is a favorable circumstance for sentencing.'

Mr. Shin appealed the second trial decision. However, the Supreme Court stated, 'The second trial found that Mr. Shin, after being sentenced to actual imprisonment for similar crimes and having completed his sentence, began committing these offenses again as soon as his parole period ended, showing a very weak sense of lawfulness and a high likelihood of reoffending. Thus, it considered this and upheld the 15-year sentence, stating that the second trial's sentencing cannot be deemed highly inappropriate.'

※ This article has been translated by AI. Share your feedback here.