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

The Defendant is a member of the manufacturer of mechanical parts of the mutual name “D” in the old and American City C.

On April 3, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement stating that “A victim B, who was introduced by the branch of the F notary office of the F notary public office of the Gu-Si, Si-si, the Defendant himself, is the representative of the said D”, and “MCT, is investing in intending to purchase two parts of the machinery. When the said machinery is purchased to the extent that it is a large amount of money, profits will continuously accrue. If 45 million won is invested, the Defendant would pay every month 30% of the profits (as approximately 300-4 million won).”

However, in fact, the Defendant was not the representative of the above company, and the minimum price per unit of MPM machinery was at least 80 million won, and it was not a situation for the company to purchase two or more the above machinery as it was not good at the time, and even if the Defendant received an investment, it was not possible for the Defendant to make profits as above because it was plans to purchase a machine equivalent to about 30 million won, called 'tight', and thus, it was impossible to generate profits as above. Furthermore, the Defendant did not talk about the contents of the above contract in detail to G, who is the representative of the above company. As such, even if 45 million won was received from the victim, it was thought that most of the above contract was used for one's own living expenses, etc., so the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the agreed profits even if 45 million won was received from the victim from

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 45 million from the victim under the pretext of investment money around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the suspect of G by the prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol of G and H:

1. Application of the police protocol protocol law to B

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Social service order under the Criminal Act;