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

Around July 2005, the Defendant stated that “Around July 2005, the Defendant would pay the victim D the interest of the third part of each month when he/she receives money from the victim D, while he/she received money from the two buildings that he/she knows. When it is erroneous for an investment, he/she will guarantee the principal of the money in advance. Whenever, the Defendant would return the principal immediately if he/she talks only one month prior to a month.”

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he thought that he will use it as a cost of living, such as meal cost and insurance premium, so the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the interest of the third part of the month by investing in the building project.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received five million won from the victim via the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number E) in the name of the Defendant on May 27, 2006, and received a total of nine million won from May 27, 2006 to May 30, 2008, as stated in the separate crime list, as shown in the separate crime list.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime (generally, the choice of imprisonment);

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act or more (i.e., non-power of the same kind, reflectivity, agreement, and exemption from punishment);