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

Around March 7, 2017, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would transfer the victim’s share of the above land and F road 17 square meters if he/she paid KRW 70 million to the victim D with the purchase price and permission cost of land E in Taean-gun, Taean-gun.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was not the owner of FF road, and there was no fact that the Defendant intended to purchase or purchase the above road from G, who is the owner of the above road, and thus, it was impossible to transfer the above road shares to the victim. Therefore, even if the Defendant received KRW 70 million from the victim, he/she did not have the intent or ability to transfer the

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of KRW 70 million from March 7, 2017 to December 30, 2017 from the victim to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning G;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A real estate sales contract and a full certificate of registered matters;

1. Details of deposit transactions;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of suspended sentence is equivalent to substantial damage caused by the instant crime. However, considering the fact that the Defendant purchased road shares, etc. and transferred them to the victim, he/she has endeavored to recover damage, it shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, circumstances after the