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 October 2012, 2012, the Defendant: “A victim C (52 years of age, women) who had made it known of the name of the river basin located in the Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do; the Defendant: (a) laid down the gate construction project in the river basin; (b) laid down the gate construction project in the river basin in Gangwon-do; and (c) laid down the 100 million won inside the river basin in the initial 580,000 won.

It is eight cases in which the room of pentry is 10 million won in one month.

Since the original loan has been KRW 200 million in the pention, it will be 100 million in the inside, and the letter will be 100 million in the face, and the remaining 80 million in the face of the bonds now collected.

“.........”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the injured party for the business partnership, he thought that he would not use it for purchasing penture, but for personal purposes.

The Defendant acquired the total sum of KRW 100 million from the injured party on December 18, 2012, and KRW 50 million on December 19, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the part recorded inC);

1. The statement of the trading (the statement of the witness C cannot be consistent and inconsistent after the police, and its credibility is given in light of the attitude of testimony in this court.

The defendant asserts that the witness's statement is not reliable since the statement is not consistent as to whether the witness gives money as a down payment or as an intermediate payment, and there is no consistent statement as to when and when the specific date of the contract for sale and purchase of pentents is when.

However, the witness merely stated the contents of the above sales contract from the defendant who demanded money as the purchase price for pents without knowing that the above sales contract was actually executed because he did not have been involved in the pents sales contract at the time. Thus, the witness merely stated the above contents.