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

On December 2, 2010, the Defendant concluded that, in the “F clothes shop operated by the Defendant, the Defendant would return money to the victim D’s wife, which had been operated by the Defendant, from the Defendant, to the victim, who seeks to acquire the said store from E via E, if he/she rents the “G” store at the level of 35 square meters in the above “F store.” Since the Defendant knew of the officers of the “G”, it would be possible to use the money if he/she rents out, then the Defendant would return the money if he/she became aware of the sales amount.”

However, the Defendant did not have any person among the employees of the “G” head office, and even if the Defendant received money under the pretext of the shop occupants, there was no intention or ability to return the said money, even if he did not have any intention or ability to store the said money to the shop occupants in charge of the “G” head office, or to return the said money.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained KRW 10,000 from the victim on December 16, 201 and acquired it by deception under the pretext of expenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to E and D;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment, and imprisonment;

1. Taking into account the fact that there is no record of criminal history of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the suspended sentence, confession and reflection thereof, partial repayment of damages, and efforts have been made to raise a child suffering from depression by combining recent rulings after divorce;