2. Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3...

The Defendant had conducted solar energy projects in Ireland C with the trade name D.

I are people.

1. On February 2013, 2013, the Defendant sent USD 20,000 to the Victim F in the above E office to the Victim F, “F may reduce 500 kg of dried sea water to USD 40 per kilogram, and supply USD 20,000 to F G within a week.

D. The phrase “assumed” made a false statement to the effect that “.”

However, even if the defendant received the purchase cost of the piracy from the injured party, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to supply the piracy to the injured party.

On March 5, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received USD 11,182 (Korean Won 1,2190,00) from the victim to the account of the Defendant established in the NZ bank in the Democratic Republic of the Republic of Korea (NZ) on March 5, 2013.

2. On March 2013, 2013, the Defendant may obtain export permission from the victim, at the same place as that of the above paragraph 1, when he/she intends to export the sea ginseng from the place where he/she was under way to the Republic of Korea.

It will be supplied to the original residents of the Republic of Korea, and the F will make a factory in the North Island of the Republic of Korea and process it.

Since the internal branch has a staff who works as a tree in the place where they are located, the factory may be mobilized to leave the factory.

As a result, there was a false statement to the effect that “the USD 4,500 is changed at its expense.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to stop the factory with the money even if he received the construction cost of the seari processing factory from the injured party.

On March 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received USD 1,000 in the Defendant’s office of Paragraph 1 above, from the victim, and acquired USD 2,500 in total from the Defendant’s office of Paragraph 1 above, such as receiving USD 2,500 in the sofacination ($ 2,790,00 in the sofacination) from Defendant’s office of Paragraph 1 above on the same day, and received USD 1,00 in the sofacination at H’s coffee shop on the same day, and received USD 1,500 in the sofacination.

3. The Defendant is on March 27, 2013 at the same place as the foregoing paragraph 1 above.