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

On September 27, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment for fraud at the Incheon District Court on May 20, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 20, 2013, and the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, on June 1, 2009, Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office “D” would complete construction works within two months at the victim E.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to cause damage to the victim even if he received construction payment, on the ground that the Defendant received money from the victim at the risk of de facto suspension of the business due to the failure of the employees to contact with the employees due to the delayed payment of the staff, rent, and communication fee, etc. at that time, and accordingly, he did not have any intent or ability to cause damage to the victim even if he received construction payment.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 2 million on June 1, 200, KRW 910 million on the pretext of construction payment from the victim, KRW 91 million on the same month, KRW 7 million on the 15th day of the same month, KRW 2 million on the 19th day of the same month, and KRW 33.5 million on the 7.5 million on July 13, 2009.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant (including the whole part of the statement in G, H, I, and E);

1. Written public prosecutorial statements;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. In the judgment of the court below, the Franchis contract, the details of passbooks, the new bank transaction details (E), the new bank transaction statement (G), the new bank transaction details (Defendant) and the previous criminal records of the enterprise bank transaction details (Defendant 1): He denies the crime to the effect that the defendant and the defense counsel had an intent to conduct the meatry construction to the victim at the time of entering into the instant franchise contract, and the victim's money was not acquired, since it has sufficient capability to do so.

However, the problem of the J Building F franchise store, which the injured party leased, is the contractual problem.