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

On March 20, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, stating, “The Defendant, at a coffee shop where it is impossible to know the trade name located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ayangdong, to acquire and operate a recess in the vicinity of Gangseo-gu D. When entering into a contract for 140,000 won, if the money partially falls short of 80,000 won, he/she may take over the remaining money at his/her own expense. It will give KRW 3 million per month.”

However, at the time, the above-mentioned rest period is not KRW 140 million, but KRW 2.2 million per month, so the defendant did not have an intention to pay part of the above rest period acquisition price, and the defendant was planning to borrow money above the actual contract price from the defendant under the pretext of the rest period acquisition price for the operation fund or personal use.

Nevertheless, the Defendant made such a false statement to the victim, while deceiving the victim by transmitting pictures of false contracts in which the above amount of the acquisition price of the telecom was stated as KRW 140,000,000 to the one bank account in the name of wife E on the same day from the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant was given property by deceiving the victim as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the C’s statement part);

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors of sentencing shall be taken into account):

1. Article 32(1)3 and Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, etc. of Application for Compensation Order, is the amount partially repaid by the defendant to the applicant for compensation order after the crime of this case, and the scope of compensation liability is not clear in the criminal procedure.