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

On July 30, 2010, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the Defendant’s branch located in Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu; (b) around July 30, 2010, the Defendant issued to the victim D, who was aware of the Defendant’s passage to the same church in Pyeongtaek-gu; and (c) “E, who was living in the apartment in his own house, does not take away from the present time when he intends to get a director; (d) he did not take away the deposit amount of KRW 13 million; and (e) he did not start with E.g., remitted the amount of KRW 2 million to the new account by adding the amount of KRW 11 million to the new account; (e) there is money to be received from the person who is “F”; and (e) now, he collected money from the bank. When he borrowed money, he would have to do so.”

However, even if there was money that the Defendant received from “F” at the time of fact, there was no fact that “F” did not collect money from the bank, and whether or not the Defendant was immediately able to receive the money from “F”, and there was no other property of the Defendant. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money in accordance with the said promise.

The Defendant had the victim transfer money of KRW 13 million in total to E under the name of return of deposit money prior to the same day by adding the amount of KRW 11 million of the victim to the amount of KRW 2 million remitted from the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 11 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including parts concerning D's statement);

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a list of savings deposit transactions;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

1. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is not adequate, the defendant's liability for the crime of this case is not sufficient.