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

around December 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) stated to the effect that “E, an employee of the injured company, is running restaurant franchise business in In Mancheon, has a large number of member stores, and sales amount belongs to the amount equivalent thereto; (b) if the Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from the previous trading company, he/she shall pay the borrowed money from the previous trading company; and (c) if he/she borrowed KRW 40 million from the previous trading company D, he/she shall repay the borrowed money from the previous trading company; and (d) if he/she borrowed KRW 40 million from the previous trading company D, he/she shall repay the borrowed money from the previous trading company after trading with D, for six months later; and (d) the Defendant believed it as true, received KRW 50 million from the victim company on December 26, 2013, KRW 15 million around January 16, 2014, KRW 2000,000,000,000 from the victim company.

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim company, he did not intend to pay the borrowed money from the previous transaction company, but did not intend to pay the borrowed money from the previous transaction company. There was no other revenue or property, and there was no other intention or ability to pay the borrowed money from the victim company.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim company, thereby deceiving 40 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness E and F’s respective legal statements and witness G’s partial legal statements;

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

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

3. Determination on the criminal intent to acquire by deceit under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order

1. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant and his defense counsel paid the Defendant a debt borrowed from the victimized company to the victimized company on the income of the distribution commission that the victimized company paid to the Defendant. However, the victimized company failed to perform its duty of delivery.