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

1. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant defrauded KRW 50 million by deception: (a) around April 29, 2013, at the dental clinic operated by the victim E in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu; and (b) the victim stated that “The Defendant would pay the victim profits by taking advantage of the type of the total sales contract deposit for the Daejeon Daejeon-gu area, in order to reduce the sales profit for the quantity of doping to which the order entered in the Daejeon-gu area with respect to a limited liability company F, which is handled by the inside and outside of the Gu.”

However, even if the defendant was given KRW 50 million from the injured party as the deposit money for the total sales contract, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the profits to the injured party by operating his business in the Daejeon area.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 43 million won from the victim who caused such false statement to the national bank account in the name of the company F with limited liability on the same day, and around that time, received 4 million won from the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, and had the victim deliver 3 million won to G, who is the birth of the victim of the interest of employees of the limited company F, and acquired 50 million won in total from the victim.

2. On May 13, 2013, the Defendant defraudation KRW 100 million with the victim at the dental clinic operated by the victim, such as the above paragraph 1, around May 13, 2013, the victim’s “a limited company F is now at the time when the funds are insufficient.

If an investment of 150 million won is made, 50 million won of the company's shares shall be given to 5% of the company's shares, and if profits are made, it shall be given to the amount corresponding

In addition, at any time, the purport of “to return the principal within two months if the withdrawal of the investment is sought” was stated to the effect that the principal will be returned.

However, the fact is that the only limited company F did not have any profit accrued at the time, and the defendant did not have the ability to pay the profit for the investment amount as promised by the victim, and the victim demanded the return of the above KRW 100 million.