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

The Defendant, as the representative of Ansan-si (ju) D, who is in Ansan-si, used the Gambling Gamp for “E” in the printing machine, developed the Gambet machine (hereinafter “the instant machine No. 2”) that enables the printing thereof by directly inserting it into the printing machine, and used the Gambls to request the F Company G to manufacture it, but due to operational difficulties, the balance of the mechanical cost, etc. was already insufficient, and thus, the Defendant had already been set up a collateral security by factory collateral security, so the Defendant was able to receive rent by concluding a lease contract with the victim Gap Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”, “victim”).

On December 28, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract for facility leasing (lease) with G, lessee A, facility leasing company: damage company: 385,000,000 won for the remainder of the price of the said machinery, and received from the victimized company to the business bank account in the name of F Company (H) under the name of F Company, a manufacturer of the said machinery, by concluding a contract for facility leasing (lease) with G, lessee A (Defendant), and facility leasing company: 385,000,000 won.

However, in fact, around December 10, 2012, the Defendant already borrowed KRW 924,00,000 from the monthly branch of Korea Bank's monthly branch and established a collateral mortgage on the factory including the instant mechanical equipment 2, and thus, even though there was no right to dispose of the said mechanical equipment, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the victimized company as above and then acquired money KRW 385,00,000 from the victimized company as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement of I;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution seems to be relatively larger than the amount of damage to the victimized company, on the other hand, the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime in this court at the latest, and the victimized company.