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

On November 13, 2018, the name weakist stated that a loan may be granted up to 33 million won at a low interest rate if the existing loan is repaid after communicating the victim B with the employee of Cbank in contact with the victim B.

However, in fact, the person who was not a Cbank employee was not a Cbank employee, there was no intention or ability to provide a loan to the victim, and it was thought that he will receive money from the victim by deceiving the victim.

On November 14, 2018, the person who was unaware of the name was accused of the victim and was transferred 13.76 million won to the Cbank account in the name of the defendant.

On the other hand, around November 14, 2018, the Defendant: (a) acknowledged that the account was transferred to one’s own account; (b) and (c) caused another person to use the account for fraud; (c) provided that, around November 14, 2018, the account could be used for fraud; (d) provided the instructions from one and one million won, out of the money deposited into the said C Bank account under the name of the Defendant, and aided and abetted the one who sent out the account by withdrawing KRW 11 million among the money deposited into the said C Bank account under the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. A decision not to institute a prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account details;

1. Article 347 (1) and Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for aiding and abetting and mitigation;

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

1. The fact that the money transferred to the account under the name of the accused for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act appears to have no conclusive perception of the crime of larceny by the crime of Bophishing fraud, the fact that there was no criminal record of the same kind, the fact that the crime is recognized, and the fact that it is against the law, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and