However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On September 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the house of the Victim D, who was pro-Japanese-gun C of Gyeonggi-gun on September 2, 2013, the Defendant: (b) installed six straw machines from November 2013 to around November 2013, if the Defendant paid in full the amount of KRW 36 million used in the pentol-gun; (c) provided money received from other construction; and (d) lent money to the Defendant so that D may use the pent-gun in operating the pent-gun.

“Around that time, the damage was 36 million won from the injured.”

However, in fact, the Defendant thought that most of the money received from the injured party was used as personal debt repayment or living expenses, but it was thought that only a part of the money was used as a down payment for the purchase of the studio, but at the time, the Defendant applied for credit recovery to the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission for the size of the debt amounting to 50 million won at the time, and the claim for other construction was already lost. In addition, since there was no special revenue at the time, the Defendant did not have the ability to normally pay back the balance of the studio machinery to purchase or lend money for the operation of the studio of the victim, even if it was received from the injured party in full, there was no intention or ability to install it in the studio

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired 36 million won from the injured party by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each protocol of suspect interrogation of the accused by the prosecution (including the parts concerning D or E statements);

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A contract for delivery of goods;

1. The result of the electronic financial transfer [the defendant received the full amount from the injured party and used only part of the money as the purchase fund, and the defendant should have been able to pay the remainder of the purchase price to E in order to complete the implementation, so it is a matter of whether or not the defendant has such ability.