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

On September 18, 2010, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would pay the victim the above cosmetics, house-to-house price, and store rent for the cosmetics store operated by the victim C in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City by providing the victim with the rent for the shop of cosmetics in the city of mail, the house-to-house, and the shop rent for the shop of cosmetics within one year.”

However, at the time, the Defendant was liable to pay 50,000,000 won or more and there was a situation in which family members should support the cosmetics store, so even if profits were incurred by operating the cosmetics store, the Defendant was thought to be appropriated as living expenses, etc., and even if the cosmetics were received from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the above amount.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained 18,955,932 won from the victim, and acquired 3,000,000 won of cosmetics and office fixtures and rents.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of statutes on a copy of contract;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the same Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 of the Criminal Act provides that there is no record of criminal punishment except the criminal defendant sentenced to eight months of embezzlement for embezzlement for the year 2000; Article 1 of the suspended execution); the crime of this case appears not to