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

On July 14, 2016, the Defendant called “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant called “D,” the victim prepared to take over the said restaurant, stating, “The Defendant would be able to give priority to passing money if he pays KRW 2.5 million per month.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have joined the 50 million fake system and the 100 million fake system, and even if the Defendant received money from the victim as the guidance payment, it was thought that it would be used for personal repayment, etc., and thus, there was no intention or ability to preferentially receive the guidance payment even if he received it from the victim.

As above, the Defendant received 1,1650,000 won from the victim to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant from December 8, 2016, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant's partial statement in court (including C's statement);

1. C’s written confirmation of the content of each account transaction in each account, E-record, investigation report (Ephone statement), investigation report (verification of the same criminal records as a suspect), investigation report (verification of the criminal records) (the defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that the defendant merely borrowed money from the victim rather than receiving money as a relay payment, and denies the criminal intent of defraudation. Comprehensively taking into account the evidence in the judgment, the victim’s statements are consistent with the victim’s legal and investigative agencies, and the victim’s statements are reinforced credibility due to the contents of the E’s statement and recording. Furthermore, in light of the balance of bank as a basic recipient of daily life, the defendant can be recognized that he/she had no means at the time of receiving the money, and thus,

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime;