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

On June 25, 2012, the Defendant purchased one car in the name of the Defendant at the agricultural agency in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., which is located in the Namyang-si, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If the limit of the D Card owned by the Defendant increases, the Defendant would pay the purchase price of the car with the relevant card and pay the use price properly.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant increased the limit of use and purchased the above car, he received the vehicle and immediately sold it, and prepared cash after selling it, and did not have the intention or ability to pay the price properly.

After deceiving the victim as above and raising the limit of use by the injured party, the Defendant paid 26,00,000 won in lump sum with the above D Card, and acquired financial benefits equivalent to the above amount in a manner that did not pay the price to the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

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. Although the errors of the defendant in the grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are somewhat minor, the sentencing conditions as ordered are considered in light of the following: the defendant's age, environment, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.