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

At around 18:00 on February 24, 2012, the Defendant stated that “Around May 2012, the Defendant was seeking to find employment by taking advantage of a friendly relationship with a personnel authority, as if the Defendant had worked as a senior chairperson in F, a company prior to the division of E, as the Defendant had worked as a senior vice-chairperson,” and that “Around May 2012, the Defendant would have been employed by taking advantage of a friendly relationship with a person with a personnel authority. If the amount of KRW 30 million is paid to KRW 30,000,000,000, not later than May 10, 2012.”

However, the above company did not have a new employment plan around May 2012, and the defendant did not have an intention or ability to have another person employed.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, acquired KRW 30,00,000 on February 27, 2012 from the victim’s agricultural bank account (Account Number: G) under the name of the Defendant, for job placement commission, and acquired KRW 30,00,000 on March 6, 2012, and KRW 4,000,000 on March 14, 2012, by transfer, from the victim’s total amount of KRW 30,00,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to H, D, and I;

1. An explanatory note and a letter of undertaking;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of passbook transactions and written confirmation of details of entry and departure transactions;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the defendant is in violation of depth in this court and that the defendant has endeavored to recover from damage, such as partially repaying the money acquired through deception, etc.);

1. The above facts constituting the crime of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act are crimes falling under the category No. 1 of general fraud according to sentencing guidelines, and no particular aggravated or mitigated factors cannot be seen. Thus, the punishment as ordered shall be determined within the scope of sentence by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the trial and records of this case within the scope of sentence

On the other hand, the reasons for suspending the execution of punishment are as seen earlier.

One (unagreement) the main reason for the suspension of execution according to the sentencing criteria and one (the scale of substantial damage) the main reason for the suspension of execution.