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 January 2012, the Defendant was friendly with the victim C (M, 46 years of age) who became aware of in the Internet car page, and was living together from August 2012.

On January 22, 2015, the Defendant heard the victim’s father’s living together with the officetel located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government that the victim suffered losses due to construction, and that the victim would be 1 billion won or more by filing a lawsuit through his/her relative D lawyer, and the victim would be able to receive at least one billion won at least through his/her relative D lawyer, and the victim would be able to recover litigation expenses, and the victim would have received KRW 21 million from the victim on June 22, 2015 to the Defendant-friendly EF account in the name of his/her mother-friendly E (F), and even thereafter, the victim would have continued to file a lawsuit under the pretext of “where intending to proceed a lawsuit, deposit shall be required, and the provisional seizure shall be required.” The Defendant requested the victim to pay money from the victim under the name of the said E to the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of the victim.

2. 24. 20 million won, and the same year;

6. 24. 5 million won was transferred respectively;

However, the defendant was thought to use the above money for living expenses without requesting a lawyer to do so, and there was no intention or ability to compensate for the damage suffered by his father by using it as expenses related to the lawsuit.

As such, the Defendant was given a total of KRW 50,11 million by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Partial statement of the witness C;

1. Application of the verification certificate (21 million won) and the details of the purchase and sale transaction of the NongHyup Bank;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (The reasons why the sentencing is considered among the following) [the scope of the recommended punishment in accordance with the sentencing guidelines] Fraud (the scope of the recommended punishment in accordance with the sentencing guidelines] and the basic area (from June to January to June) (the sentencing decision in 100) [the sentence] is reasonable: The defendant shows an attitude against the defendant in favor of the fact that the damage was not actually recovered, even though the damage was considerable: the damage was not actually recovered.