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

At around 22:00 on July 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C’s house of North-gu B apartment 5 Dong 107, North-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-gu, Mapo-si, stating, “The Defendant would have to perform one year at the Eda located in south-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, and move to another party. There is an amount of twenty three million won (23 million won) and, on the pretext of advance payment, the Defendant would have paid the amount without a mold.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not own any property at the time and did not have any intent or ability to repay money from the victim even if he borrowed money from the victim, and he did not have any intent or ability to do so, and he did so with the intention to sleep.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received from the victim, KRW 23 million from the notary public H office located in North-gu G at the port on the 16th day of the same month to the account of community credit cooperatives in the name of the Defendant, under the name of the Defendant, as a multilateral advance payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. A protocol of suspect examination of the police officer regarding I;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on copies of bankbooks by Dong and J;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended execution (the first offender, most of the defraudeds are used for the repayment of prepaid money to the previous business owner, the crime of defraudation is not shown to have become final and conclusive in light of the previous business establishment's work patterns, and the types of occupation selected after the crime, etc., and if the person does not engage in the following work, it appears that the person who received the prepaid money was satisfying on the multiple days, and it appears that the husband living together is a joint and several surety, and the defendant also appears to be a joint and several surety, and if the husband living together seems to have committed the crime, then the victim seems to be unsatisfyed, and his/her mistake is divided by

1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, probation, etc. of community service order;