However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date of the final judgment.

On May 2012, the Defendant stated that “E” clothes sales store of the victim D’s “E” located in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, that “The Defendant would pay the victim the amount of clothes with the money that would have been deposited after the completion of the lawsuit on August 30, 2012, when the victim filed a lawsuit equivalent to KRW 600 million with the court due to the property dispute of the house-type system.”

However, in fact, it is not clear whether or not the defendant can receive money in favor of the defendant in the above lawsuit. At the time, the defendant had no particular revenue or property, and even if he purchases clothes from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the money.

The Defendant, as such, deceiving the victim as such and received nitro, etc. in the market price from the victim around May 12, 2012, and from the time of the same year, from the victim.

9. From around 20.20 to around 40.2, the victim was issued a clothing in the market value.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses D in part of the second trial records;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of the prosecution examination protocol to the accused;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is insufficient to recognize that the market price of the clothes acquired by the defendant is 7,1320,000 won in total by means of deception, taking into account the fact that the clothes acquired by the defendant is deemed to be market price, and that the defendant has

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;