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

1. On January 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around January 20, 2016, at the victim D’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (C. 515); (b) “In-house PPL agency (indirect broadcast advertising); (c) broadcast experience is high, and (d) annual sales are high.

If investment is made, it is expected to bring profits by establishing and operating the PPL agency.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, in fact, regardless of the operation of the PPL agency, the Defendant was thought to use the money invested by the injured party for the purpose of paying the Defendant’s existing personal debt, and the Defendant did not have any other intent or ability to pay the profit as agreed upon by the injured party, since it did not have any other funds to normally operate the said corporation at the time when the said corporation was in full amount of debt without any

On January 20, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was granted KRW 50 million to the corporate bank account (F) in the name of the business bank in the name of the E in charge of the settlement of disputes.

2. On January 28, 2016, the Defendant’s fraud calls to the victim on or around January 28, 2016, and “SBS requires a certificate of KRW 200 million to register the PPL business.”

At present, there is only KRW 100,000,000,000,000 is rapidly transferred. The balance certificate is only the balance certificate and it is 30,000,000 won on the following day.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not think of the issuance of the balance certificate in KRW 200 million, and was planned to use the money received from the injured party for the purpose of paying the Defendant’s existing personal debt, as well as to use the money for the purpose of paying the Defendant’s personal debt, and there was no intention or ability to pay the said money as promised to the injured party.

On January 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; and (b) was granted KRW 30 million to the corporate bank account in the name of the said Dispute Resolution E on the loan from the damaged party.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's person;