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

Around July 1, 2009, the Defendant stated that “A” store operated by the victim C in the Dongdong-dong City of China would receive a store from the victim “D” store, and that “A” would take time to sell a house in Korea with no money, so that there would be a difference only one year, and that the house would make a share of monthly salary when he sells a house in Korea.”

However, due to the fact that there was no house in Korea, there was no ability to pay the acquisition price even if the victim received the said D store from the victim.

Around July 1, 2009, the Defendant had taken over the amount equivalent to KRW 90,640,200 (China People's Abolition 490,000) at the market price of the said D store and the products for delivery, as a whole, around July 1, 2009.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the statement section ofC);

1. Money borrowed;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that there is no criminal history of the same kind of crime and the fact that the victim has not been punished under an agreement with the victim);

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62-2 or more of the Criminal Act;