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

The Defendant, at the second floor of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D building in early April 2008 and the second floor of the E office in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, “Vocational Training Institute is receiving the State subsidies from Pyeongtaek-do Pyeongtaek-do,” which can be guaranteed not only the principal but also high-income if the Defendant made an investment therein.

If it is wrong, the training center can be forced to occupy it.

In this regard, as there is no investment money to B, 200 million won will be invested and the principal will be guaranteed within several months and the profits will be paid.

“.....”

However, in fact, the defendant thought that he will use the money for the personal purpose even after receiving the money from the injured party, so that he did not have the intention or ability to make the principal and profit by investing in the Vocational Training Center as stated by the injured party.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100 million from the victim on April 14, 2008, KRW 50 million on April 21, 2008, KRW 50 million on May 21, 2008, KRW 50 million on May 21, 2008, and KRW 200 million from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Determination of the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion of investigation report ( listening to the statement in the currency relating to materials submitted by the suspect)

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendant received KRW 200 million from the injured party, but among them, KRW 100 million was paid from the injured party for the purpose of investment in the reconstruction project rather than the investment in the training center for vocational education and training, so the part is not subject to fraud

2. The following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the Defendant consistently stated to the effect that he/she would guarantee the principal and receive profits within a month from the injured party, and that he/she invested KRW 200 million to the injured party, and ② there is no special reason to lend money to the Defendant’s wife when he/she purchases apartment reconstruction.