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.

The defendant around March 2009, at the home of the victim D located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the defendant set up a raw plant to the victim in the Gangnam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.

The water intake has already been set up on the ground.

If an investment in this project is made, it is false to pay money.

However, in fact, since around 2007, the defendant tried to prepare investment funds and to start a livelihood plant business, but all scheduled investment plans were nonexistent, so it was impossible to proceed with the livelihood plant business at the time of providing the victim's business explanation. Even if the defendant's personal debt was paid from the injured party due to a large amount of 00 million won, he did not think that it was used as the defendant's debt repayment or living expenses, and there was no intention or ability to continue the livelihood plant business.

On May 27, 2009, the defendant deceiving the victim and received 32,800,000,000 won with the NongHyup account (F) in the name of E on July 3, 2009, and 3,000,000 won with the same account on July 3, 2009, and 10,000,000 won with the Saemaul Depository Account (G) in the name of the defendant on September 23, 2009, from the victims of the above deceptioning the victim as above, and received 45,80,000,000 won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of each police officer with regard to H;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Certificates of details by account, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on deposit certificates;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Although the nature of the instant crime is not good in light of the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the following factors are considered as favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized and reflects his own crime in this court; (b) the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant upon agreement with the victim; and (c) there is no record of punishment after the suspension of the execution of the sentence was sentenced in 1997; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, intelligence and environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime.