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

The Defendant’s “G” as stated in the written indictment of the victim D is a clerical error in the victim’s indictment at the “cac shop” located in G at the end of May 2015.

In the middle of Chuncheon City, F already invested KRW 300,000,000 in the E Construction Site. Upon the commencement of the construction, F made a false statement to the effect that “In the construction site, the entire construction site shall not be available and the part of the site shall be entitled to operate the restaurant.”

However, at the time of fact, the above E-site was not designated as the contractor, and there was no fact that the contractor granted the defendant the right to operate the restaurant, so the defendant did not have the intent or ability to grant the victim the right to operate the restaurant in the E-site.

On June 5, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received money from the victim to the corporate bank account (H) in the name of the Defendant on June 5, 2015, from the victim, and fraudulently acquired money from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, I and J;

1. A restaurant operation consignment contract, a letter, a payment note, and a notarial deed;

1. Investigation report (related to the currency of the development executor of Chuncheon E), investigation report (related to the submission of a complainant's certified copy of the register), criminal investigation report (delivery by a suspect to K), investigation report (L representative M and telephone communications), investigation report (F company N and telephone communications);

1. On January 28, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was a person who was in the position of a managing director in the AO; and (b) was a person who was engaged in investment-related business; and (c) around January 28, 2015, a P Co., Ltd. entered into a memorandum of understanding on the operation

However, since the E business commencement corporation was not fixed on May 2015, it was not decided whether to enjoy the right to operate the brine restaurant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, through I or Q, recommended P Co., Ltd. to work in P Co., Ltd. through the I or Q, and only has a vague expectation that the Defendant would have the right to operate a brine from the contractor to be decided by the recommendation, and the Defendant has the right to operate the brine.