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

"2014 Highest 121"

1. Fraud;

A. On April 2009, when it was necessary for the defrauded to use the second floor "E" office, debt repayment, etc. on the second floor of the Do apartment shopping mall in the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul Special Self-Governing Officer on April 14, 2009, the Defendant acquired money from the victim F to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant on April 14, 2009, by means of a false statement to the effect that, despite the absence of the trees used on the landscaping day at the time, the money is necessary to dispose of the trees used on the original landscape day. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 7,500,000, it is necessary to organize the previous day and work in E.

B. On December 4, 2009, the Defendant: (a) on December 4, 2009, at the center near the joint wholesale market of agricultural and fishery products located in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on December 4, 2009, the Defendant thought that it would be used as living expenses, etc. because of economic difficulties at the time, even if he was paid the money from the victim G who wants to purchase the trees; and (b) did not have the intent or ability to provide the above victim with the king trees, he would deliver the 240 king trees to the victim G by April 15, 2010. After four (4) days, the Defendant acquired the above victim G with the intention to use it as living expenses, etc., and then acquired the 1,500,000 won from the above victim’s money under the name of the down payment and the sum of the 1,000 won and the 130,000 won in cash from the above victim’s money.

C. On February 10, 2010, the Defendant: (a) on February 10, 2010, when a sudden challenge was required to be used for debt repayment, etc. in the second floor of H building in Busan Y building (one set of tea stores); and (b) on February 10, 2010, the Defendant concealed the fact in spite of the fact that the Defendant did not wish to work in the company operated by the said victim even if he received money from the victim I.