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

1. On January 5, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim before the victim D’s home located in Tong Young-si, stating that “The Defendant would have repaid KRW 20 million until February 28, 2012, because labor expenses, material expenses, etc. to be incurred by the victim D, which are insufficient for the victim D to do so, and the victim would have repaid to him/her on or before the victim D’s home.”

However, the Defendant did not have the ability to repay the amount even if he borrowed money from the victim, because the land and buildings owned by the Defendant were disposed of by auction, and was in excess of the debt amounting to KRW 81 million, and was thought to pay the money from the victim as expenses related to the interior works.

The Defendant received from the victim the cash of KRW 20 million in the face of the victim.

2. On December 20, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around the victim’s house, the victim, before the victim’s house, was unable to pay money due to the interior works as above; and (b) paid the victim a full payment not later than February 28, 2013; and (c) borrowed KRW 20 million.

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the ability to repay it as above.

The Defendant received from the victim the cash of KRW 20 million in the face of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired a total of KRW 40 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. An interrogation protocol of the police against the accused (including the questioning part of the complainant);

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of statutes to each investigation report (credit information inquiry report, etc.);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. In a case where a person intentionally commits a deceptive act in the mitigated area (special mitigation) of types 1 (less than KRW 100,00) in the range of recommendation types according to the sentencing guidelines (the decision of type) of general fraud, or a deceptive act.