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

The Defendant, at the Suwon District Court on December 17, 2014, sentenced three years of suspension of execution to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud, and the judgment was finalized on December 25, 2014. On September 20, 2018, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced two years of suspension of execution to two years of imprisonment for fraud, three years of suspension of execution to three years of imprisonment, and two years of suspension of execution to one year and six months of imprisonment, and became final and conclusive on April 5, 2019.

On October 2012, the Defendant stated, through B, that “A victim C has the right to operate a restaurant in D apartment box, the premium is up to 2-300 million won, and if part of the premium is leased, the Defendant would make it possible to work at a brine restaurant, and divide the labor cost for work and the profits generated from the operation of the brine restaurant into two times.”

However, the defendant did not have the right to operate a bridge at the construction site of Ulsan apartment, so it could not divide the profits with the victim, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money that the victim promised to pay as the result of the significant excess of the debt.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received a total of KRW 70 million from the victim, including KRW 20 million on January 4, 2013 and KRW 50 million on January 31, 2013.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of the victim;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (a copy of judgment);

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

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. It shall be decided as ordered for the reasons under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, such as the suspension of execution (such as the fact that the judgment has been agreed with the victim, and the principle of equity with the case that the judgment has been rendered together with each criminal facts;