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.

The Defendant was in Ulsan-gun B

C was the actual operator of C.

Between March 2014 and June 201 of the same year, the Defendant sought to purchase “boom boom boom boom car (E)” to the victim at the time when the victim D, who is the branch, intends to do boom boom with the Defendant.

If you send money to F who is the owner of the above vehicle, you will purchase and use the above vehicle and deliver the vehicle (G) purchased at the cost of the vehicle to F.

“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, even if the victim delivered money, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to purchase a boom boom vehicle or transfer a boom boom vehicle to the victim.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and used by the defendant from the damaged person;

F The Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of F, one million won around June 17, 2014, and nine million won around the 19th day of the same month, and the same year.

7. 17. A person received a total of 10,700,000 won from remittance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

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

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Investigation reports (to hear statements by complainants) and investigation reports (to hearF statements);

1. Inquiries about receipts and transaction details;

1. The (E), the Automobile Register (G), the Defendant and the defense counsel asserts as follows:

The defendant did not speak to the victim as stated in its reasoning.

However, the Defendant decided to sell a boom boom vehicle to the victim and received the remittance as stated in its reasoning. However, the Defendant modified an agreement to sell a “boom” vehicle owned by the Defendant under the conditions that the victim work together for three years at the time of the change of the victim, but the victim could not work.

It is only necessary to pay the money received from the injured party.

The victim is consistent with the facts stated in the following, from the investigative agency to the court.