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

On December 3, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E at the D Company office located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that if the D Company office “on the part of the victim E transfers the office to the Seocho-gu F, the Defendant would immediately transfer the price to F Office if the office office is delivered to the F Office.

However, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay the price even if he/she is delivered with a household for office, such as a chair, from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deceiving the victim as above, and then supplied 26 households in the amount of KRW 12,643,00 in the market price of 12,00,00, including 126 households in the name of “G” around December 3, 2013. On the 5th day of the same month, the Defendant supplied 4 households in the name of 1,978,000, including 1,978,000, and acquired 14,851,000 in the aggregate, including 1,30,000, by being supplied with 14,851,000 households in the name of 230,00 in the market price of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. Some statements concerning the suspect examination protocol of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A complaint;

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

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347 of the choice of punishment (generally, choice of imprisonment);

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration, such as the fact that the amount of damage is a relatively small amount and the fact that the agreement is reached with the victim);