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.

[Criminal record] On May 25, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Jeonju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 19, 2016.

[2] On September 1, 2015, the Defendant may not withdraw the money from the Defendant’s place of sale of sports soil in the victim D’s operation in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

The provisional attachment only withdrawn the money immediately and borrowed 300,000 won in return.” The provisional attachment made a false statement.

However, in fact, even though the Defendant was in bad credit standing at the time and did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money due to the absence of any other income in default at the end of 2014, he received 300,000 won from the injured party to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant and received a total of 35,000,000 won from the Defendant’s bank account as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

In this way, the defendant deceivings the victim, thereby deceiving 12,3820,000 won from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A detailed statement and a record of each deposit transaction;

1. Previous conviction in judgment: A investigation report (report attached to the personal confinement status and a copy of the judgment) and inquiry into criminal records and investigation records (A) and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, however, it is not necessary to strictly punish the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the amount of the reason for the fraud of the reason for the sentencing of Article 39(1) exceeds KRW 120,00,000; (b) the degree of deception is not weak; and (c) some of the crimes of this case committed while the Defendant was under investigation into another fraudulent case.

However, the defendant's mistake and reflects, and the injured party's wife by agreement with the victim.