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

On March 10, 2012, the Defendant listened to the victim C in the vicinity of Samcheon-dong, Jeoncheon-gu, Jeoncheon-gu, Seoul, the Defendant “B is a member of the National Assembly, and DB’s speech, which is the cause of the Do in the Do in Jeoncheon-do.”

B. The chief of the Jeonju-si bureau and the chief of the division are well aware of the work for Jeonju-si viewing, so he can find employment for Jeonju-si E to the Jeonju Facility Management Corporation.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to find the victim's earlycar in the Jeonju Facility Management Corporation.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received cash KRW 5 million from the injured party for the same day as the compensation for employment mediation, and received a total of KRW 25,209,040 from around that time to January 5, 2013, as shown in the attached crime sight table, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Some statements made to the accused in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect to the prosecution (including the substitute part);

1. Details of transactions of passbooks prior to C and transaction of passbooks prior to C;

1. Recording notes;

1. Two copies of the written authentication;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (F telephone statement hearing) and report on investigation (G telephone statement hearing);

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act and Article 347 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Services Criminal Act

1. Although there is a fact that a sum of KRW 2 million to KRW 3 million has been borrowed from the injured party on several occasions from the summary of the allegation, there is no fact that a person received money from the injured party for employment solicitation as stated in the facts charged and acquired it by deceit.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the above money is paid by deceiving the victim as if the defendant could not find the victim's intent or ability to find employment of the victim.