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

The Defendant, around September 2012, at the “D” office operated by the victim C in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around September 2012, the Defendant: “The Defendant: (a) entered Japan with a small father and the head of the Gu in Japan; (b) provided that the Defendant loaned KRW 20 million a security deposit to obtain the head of the Gu in advance, he/she would repay it on March 2013.

“ ................”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, it was thought that it would be used as money for gambling, and there was no think that it would be used as money for the current term deposit, and there was no intention or ability to make a change due to the Defendant’s failure to pay several million won, such as credit cards and damages without any particular revenue or property at the time.

Nevertheless, on October 12, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 20 million from the victim, to the bank account in the name of the father of the Defendant E, his father, and acquired it by defrauded.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the accused (including a cross-examination);

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Details of transactions of deposits and withdrawals;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of personal credit report;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence - The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code - The defendant's statement that the defendant has not yet been recovered - the defendant's reimbursement of damages is made, and it seems that giving an opportunity to change is also expected to recover from