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

On July 26, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the Defendant’s office located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, that “The scrap metal will be supplied from 20 tons to 50 tons each month after purchasing a high-speed model cutting machine with the advance payment of high-speed steel supplied to the victim D, and performing the work. The Defendant is currently moving a factory in the current industrialization to the truth, and it will result in scrap metal if it would work as a middle and high-tech model cutting machine.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have a chemical plant at the time, and did not have facilities necessary for the operation of the factory, and even if he purchased a middle and high-tech model cutting machine due to the lack of experience in the business using the model cutting machine, it was a situation in which it was impossible to hold the victim at the time to hold a 20 tons to supply scrap metal between 20 tons and 50 tons each month.

The Defendant was transferred from the victim the sum of KRW 12 million on July 13, 2012 and KRW 50 million on July 26, 2012 to the account in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statements made by witnesses D and E in the third protocol of trial;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (excluding cases and F counterpart investigation);

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;

1. The defendant's assertion on the defendant's assertion of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act argues that although the defendant actually purchased a model cutting machine from the victim and installed it, the defendant failed to provide scrap metal to the victim because he/she failed to seek human resources to operate the model cutting machine, the victim did not dispose of the model cutting even if he/she disposed of the model cutting, to pay the debt, and to return the part of the price to the victim. Thus, the defendant did

. The above.