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

The Defendant, who was the chief executive officer of the D Building E-dong 301, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, was actually operating the F Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retailing radiation equipment for diagnosis in No. 406 of D building E-dong 406.

On May 2009, the Defendant: (a) at the F Office for Police Officers in the middle of the F Office for Police Officers, and (b) the Victim G to the effect that “in the middle of May 2009, the inside of the Republic of Korea must take office as the president; (c) the researcher and the F representative director shall not concurrently hold office; (d) the facts charged constitute “the lending of the name of the representative director.” However, as seen in the grounds for innocence, the victim cannot be deemed to have merely lent the name; (e) as such, as seen below, the victim could not be deemed to have merely lent the name, and (e) recognized a different extent to the extent that does not interfere with the Defendant’s right to defense. In addition, the Defendant plans to develop the EX-ray machinery for dental purposes in our company, and if the inside of the company manufactures and sells the EX-ray machinery, it would be the date of stay. Instead, the machinery development cost is required, and when attracting investments, it

However, even if the Defendant received the investment money from the victim, the Defendant was most aimed at using the FF operating expenses, and the F did not have any particular revenue, while the account was also subject to seizure, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the investment money, and did not have any financial resources required to develop and manufacture dental standards X-ray machinery, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to sell X-ray machinery.

In addition, at the time, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to deliver 20% of the shares issued by the company even if he had the victim registered as the F representative director.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and around October 22, 2009.