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

On April 31, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C at the office E office of the Defendant, a company operating the Guro-gu Seoul D Building 1103, stating that “The Defendant has obtained a patent for F Products and has received a technology evaluation. When manufacturing and selling products, he/she may obtain a large amount of profit. When investing money, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that he/she will grant a right to sell and sell the agency and return the principal until December 31, 2012.”

However, the above product was not patented or technology evaluation is not conducted, and there was no profit in the company since the product was developed and market was not formed, while only the personal debt of the defendant was 300 million won, and even if the defendant was paid money from the victim, he did not use the product as a manufacturing or development and did not use it and did not want to pay the principal to the victim until December 31, 2012.

Around April 17, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 50 million from the victim to the Defendant’s G’s account at one bank account from the Defendant, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the cross-examination part);

1. Part of each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A share investment contract;

1. The statement of undertaking execution;

1. The Defendant, as a means of promising the repayment of the borrowed money, used most of the invested money from the victim to develop or produce the product, as office operating expenses such as living expenses or monthly office rent and management expenses, and as debt repayment to the customer, etc., even though there were no particular changes in circumstances, the Defendant did not produce the product in good faith, at the time, and the Defendant did not receive a patent, and was in a situation where the product was developed or market was not formed.