Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

In early 2008, the Defendant suggested that “The Victim I, who was introduced through F and G Hen Ha, purchased the land at the port and constructed the apartment construction work from May 2008, would be able to obtain the right to operate the restaurant at the box of the construction site at the site of the said construction work, and if the money is paid, the Defendant would be entitled to receive the right to operate the restaurant at the site of the said construction work.”

However, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to transfer the right to operate the said restaurant at the construction site, and there was no intention to return the money received from the victim even if the Defendant was placed in a situation that does not guarantee the right to operate the restaurant as above.

In addition, on March 31, 2008, the victim is entitled to deposit account in the name of the foreign exchange bank in the name of the G Professor on March 31, 2008.

4. Around 23.20, 30 million won was remitted to the same account as the price for the acquisition of the right to operate the restaurant, and around that time, the victim received the total sum of KRW 80 million remitted from the said Hesgin and acquired it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Partial statement of the witness J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on remittance statements;

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion regarding the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the grounds for sentencing) asserts that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant merely borrowed from HNN to HN the amount of KRW 80 million as business funds, and that the Defendant did not borrow money from the victim by deceiving the victim that he would have the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site.

However, according to the above evidence, the victims of the instant money are consistently and consistently from the investigative agency to the present court.