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

The Defendants, while running a restaurant with the trade name of “D” in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, came to fall short of operating funds due to the deficit while running the restaurant, to raise operating funds by lending money from the victim E (78 years of age). However, as a security demand was made by E, the Defendants conspired to acquire money by deceiving the victim as if the F-owned G Apartment 1 and 203, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, which is the former wife A, as if the F consented.

On February 25, 2010, the Defendants presented F’s certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to the victims of the above restaurant, stating that “The above commercial building is owned by A, and F is a title trust.” The Defendants borrowed KRW 30 million, which provides a security in a way that establishes a right to collateral on the above commercial building.”

However, the fact is that the F's certificate of personal seal impression, etc. came out from the F's house by Defendant AF, and the F did not consent to provide the above commercial building as security.

The Defendants were issued 30 million won in total from the victim, namely, cash 4 million won, 6 cashier's checks with 1 million won, 10 million won, 2 cashier's checks with 30 million won.

As a result, the Defendants received property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Relevant Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. It shall be so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of a suspended execution (alongity, agreement, and consideration of non-permanentity of punishment);