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.

On August 21, 2014, at around August 21, 2014, the Defendant recommended the victim E to purchase one per se any valuable art work or living standard of “D,” “D,” which is managed by the Defendant in the Hacheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Defendant, as well as the valuable goods of at least one billion won, with the value of at least one billion won as those returned to be used in the yellow room of the dispatching country of China prior to the 500s.

It is clear that the Republic of Korea has been 30 to 40 years in China.

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, the intention introduced by the defendant was not the intention but the intention used in the Chinese Yellow Dust for the last 500 years, so there was no value of KRW 1 billion.

The Defendant received cash of KRW 2,50,000 from the injured party, i.e., from the injured party for the purchase price, and received cash of KRW 32,50,000 from the above-mentioned store on August 24, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the E, G, and H's statement);

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Contract;

1. Recording records;

1. Photographs, such as painting;

1. A certificate of appraisal;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigation report (related to a request for appraisal by the Cultural Heritage Administration);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for the crime (elective of imprisonment);

1. The crime of this case is not good in that the defendant, for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence, had deceiving himself as if he had the intention to sell his own to the victim and had the intention to commit the crime in this case.

However, the defendant agreed with the victim, and the victim has completed the compensation including the purchase price.

Since the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor due to a crime of occupational injury or injury in the past 1973, he has not been punished in excess of the fine.

In addition to these circumstances, it is ordered to take into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, details and contents of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.