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, “D” in the vicinity of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was a person who operated an agency, and from August 2014, the Defendant requested the victim E to engage in the transaction of transportation of consigned cargo, but failed to pay the transportation cost, and the outstanding amount to be paid to the victim around April 2015 was KRW 2,987,00,000. At that time, the Defendant, the only property of the Defendant, at that time, went into compulsory execution against the right to claim the return of the deposit ( KRW 150,00,000) for the third 501 rental house of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Seoul, which is the Defendant’s property. On the other hand, the Defendant was granted a grace period for the repayment of the outstanding amount, and the Defendant was willing to terminate the said lease and dispose of the deposited amount at will.

On April 30, 2015, the defendant would pay the full amount of the outstanding amount to the victim in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim in Gangseo-gu, Seoul, where there are several companies that can collect money in May.

“Along on the same day, the victim prepared a fair certificate of content “to pay the outstanding amount in KRW 30 million on May 10, 2015, KRW 600,000,000 on May 30, 2015, KRW 7.5 million on May 30, 2015, KRW 7 million on June 15, 2015, KRW 700,000 on June 30, 2015, and KRW 2370,00 on July 15, 2015.”

However, there was no possibility of actual success in the collection of money because the above trading company, which the defendant called, did not pay the money prior to several months, and the defendant did not have any property or income other than the above lease deposit at the time, while the defendant did not have any property or income other than the above lease deposit at the time, and it was thought that the above lease deposit was disposed of voluntarily during the grace period, and there was no intention or ability to repay the outstanding amount to the victim up to July 15, 2015, as agreed by the agreement.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim obtain economic benefits by delaying the repayment deadline of the outstanding amount.

The defendant of "2016 Highest 1198" shall be the defendant of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government at the end of December 2014.