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

On January 5, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E who intends to purchase the “C Company” D Public Noticecom in the office of the construction business chain operated by the Defendant located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul. “The appraisal cost may be changed if the Defendant requested an appraisal to a person who is the F who has traded within 10 years in the Republic of Korea, for an appraisal of KRW 20 million.”

However, even if the defendant received the above money from the victim, he only thought that he will use it for his personal purpose, and did not have the intention or ability to request appraisal of the above Do Public Notice Hostel.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a copy of the check of KRW 20 million from the victim immediately.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the accused in the protocol of suspect examination of the prosecution E, G, and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes indicating a copy of a check;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not less than one month but not more than ten years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (decision of types of punishment), fraudulent crimes, types 1 (less than 100 million won) from among the general frauds (special punished persons) and not to be punished (the scope of recommending punishment) (the elements of mitigation) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one month but not more

3. Determination of sentence: The sentence shall be determined as ordered, in consideration of the various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, including the fact that the defendant, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence for a year of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime in April 2010, committed the crime of this case despite the fact that the defendant had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a year of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same crime in around 2010; on the other hand, the defendant