except that the execution of a sentence shall be deferred for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Confirmation of the judgment falling under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code] The indictment does not contain a part in the indictment, but it can be sufficiently known as data that are favorable to the defendant in this case. Thus, the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code recognizes concurrent crimes without changing the indictment.

On June 18, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for embezzlement in the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 18, 2016.

[2] The Defendant: (a) at the Victim E’s “F office” office located in Sinju-si around March 20, 2015 (hereinafter “F”); (b) the victim was under contract with G landscaping work in Macheon-do; and (c) the victim should include 16 weeks of pine trees in the above site.

However, in the case of pine suppliers, the tree suppliers will put in the total number of trees that should be paid.

section 3.

A person who lends 32 million won for pine trees shall enter the pine trees into the site of a letter of apology with the money, and shall pay the borrowed money to G at the end of March as he/she receives the borrowed money for four months by claiming a gold to G around the end of March.

“False speech” was made.

However, the Defendant was awarded a sub-subcontract from H (ju), a subcontractor who is not G, but G. However, the Defendant had already been awarded a subcontract for the foregoing landscaping project in the course of around March 2015, and around that time, Defendant I does not claim payment from H (ju) until May 2015, when the construction is completed.

“As agreed,” the victim did not have the ability to repay the borrowed money normally.

On March 20, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 32 million won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative account under the name of the Defendant’s father on March 20, 2015.

[In the facts charged, the defendant was thought to use the money borrowed from the injured party for other purposes, such as living expenses.

“The Defendant did not intend to normally repay to the victim” and “the Defendant did not intend to do so to the victim.

“.....”