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

On April 2, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E that “A notary public in Guri-si, in the D office, in order to directly rent and operate the F store in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si. If an investment of KRW 60 million is made, the lessee of the said store will be transferred and the amount of KRW 1.5 million will be paid with the monthly investment profit.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not directly rent the above store, but did not make a sub-lease from the tenant G, and the building owner did not consent to sub-lease, so there was no intention or ability to transfer the name of the tenant to the victim. Since there was a debt equivalent to approximately KRW 320 million, such as the goods price and loan, at the time, there was no intention or ability to pay the proceeds according to the agreement, even if he received an investment from the victim.

As such, the Defendant deceptioned the victim, and then acquired the victim a total of KRW 60 million by receiving each remittance of KRW 10 million on the following day from the victim for the same day as investment money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on trade in the same trade contract, notarial deed, promissory note copy, and passbook;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the defendant recognizes the fact of crime and the fact that the defendant agrees with the victim);