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

On November 18, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “E” clothes store operated by the victim D on the third floor of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central District Office (“E”) would supply the victim with a total of KRW 25,000y 25,00 parts, such as the penter straws, to be used in creating stitts by the end of January 2016, when paying the original price of KRW 50 million to the victim.”

However, in fact, the Defendant failed to conduct a normal business since it was performed around October 2014, and the customer was virtually cut. The Defendant thought that the coefficient check received from the victim was discounted and used as corporate bonds interest and living expenses, etc., so even if he received the original payment from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to supply the original payment to the victim.

On November 18, 2015, the Defendant received three copies of the household check which causes a par value of 5,000,000 from the victim, three copies of the household check which causes a par value of 5,000,000 on November 24, 2015, and four copies of the household check which causes a par value of 5,000,000 on December 4, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim and defrauds the property amounting to 50,000,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Oct. 16, 2014);