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

On November 201, 201, the Defendant, as a person with the sovereignty of Australia, concluded that “The Victim E starts the business of importing the board in China and selling it in Australia,” and that “The business of importing the board is the business of making a big profit from Australia.” On the pretext of the investment deposit, the Defendant borrowed USD 150,000 from Australia ($ 133,090,000,000 in the Republic of Korea) under the pretext of the investment deposit, he/she would return it at any time when he/she wishes to receive the future investment deposit.”

However, there is no special revenue or property at the time, and there is no intention or ability for the victim to return the investment money to the F company created to conduct the business of importing and selling the board, and there is only input of USD 100 in the capital, and it is not possible to hold that there is no business funds from the damaged party even if he borrowed money from the damaged party due to the failure to conduct the test of the product to the board. Therefore, there is no intention or ability for the victim to return the investment money at the expense of the victim.

The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) obtained USD 20,00 from the victim on November 17, 201; (c) USD 11,000 on the 18th of the same month; (d) USD 20,00 on the 23th of the same month; and (e) USD 85,982 on the 30th of the same month; and (e) USD 136,982 on the aggregate of USD 136,982 on the 30th of the same month; and (e) acquired USD 12,154,00 on the 136,982 on the 30th of the same month, from the Defendant’s account

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on borrowing certificates or remittance data;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. That the defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime by deception, as to the defendant's assertion of sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the grounds for sentencing favorable to the following)

However, the defendant promises to pay USD 100 per week after the payment of investment.