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

On April 17, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would make an investment of KRW 500 million by making a stock investment and receive a stock information to the bank employees, thereby making an investment of 20% of the principal and income within one month” to the victim’s store run by the victim C in the Busan Northern-gu B shopping district.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to guarantee principal and interest even if he did not have any financial staff who could be informed of the stock information in the vicinity of the Defendant, and even if he did not receive from the damaged person the amount of stock investment.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained delivery of KRW 17 million to the Busan Bank Account in the name of the Defendant’s mother on the same day; and (c) received delivery of KRW 2 million to the same account on the 20th day of the same month from the victim; and (d) received KRW 19 million in total.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of banking transactions and remittance statement;

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] the basic area (six months to one year and six months) (the period from six months to one year) of the types of general fraud; and

2. Imprisonment is selected by taking into account the circumstances leading up to the crime of sentencing, the scale of damage, and the fact that most damage were not recovered, and all of the sentencing conditions set forth in the arguments of this case, such as the confession of the Defendant, his mistake, the fact that the Defendant partially repaid the amount of damage, the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and other favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime.