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 April 13, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C and D on April 13, 2012, stating that “The Defendant changed KRW 28 million as a security deposit to allow the removal of the scrap metal of the F hotel building in the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E to the victim C and D.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to allow the victims to remove scrap metal because he did not have obtained the right to remove scrap metal from the executor or the owner of the building at the time of the reconstruction project or delegated the right to the contract to the said owner.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victims as above on the 14th of the same month, and he received KRW 18,000,000 from the victims to the G account in the name of G and acquired them by deceit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of H by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of H with respect to the police;

1. Each police statement made to D or C;

1. Written complaint and contract;

1. Investigation report ( telephone conversations for a witness);

1. A contract for business agency;

1. Investigation report (investigation into the land and building owner I telephone), investigation report (in the case of a witness J, K telephone investigation);

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (examination of evidence relations and hearing of additional statements by K References);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. As to the grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence, there has been a history of having already been punished several times for the reason of fraud, recognition of the defendant's mistakes and reflects against the defendant, the victims have agreed to both, there has been no record of criminal punishment heavier than a fine since 2005, and other various sentencing conditions, including the defendant's age, sex, family relationship, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as the same as the order.