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

On February 28, 2006, the defendant would pay the victim D's accommodation expenses in E operated by the victim D in the Hacheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Maok-gun on February 28, 2006.

“.......”

However, at the time, the defendant and the family members of the defendant did not have certain occupation or income and did not have any property owned by them.

Even though the defendant deceivings the victim as above and let the victim reside in the above E from that time until February 28, 2009, the defendant acquired financial benefits worth KRW 21.6 million for the above period by not paying accommodation expenses to the victim even though the defendant and his family reside in the above E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the legislation of each letter, letter of payment, and copy of a process deed;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act comprehensively including the relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime (the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of a recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the types of decisions] and the scope of a recommended punishment [the range of punishment [the range of punishment that is less than KRW 100 million] and the factors of mitigation of punishment: In cases where punishment is not imposed or a significant damage is recovered, the area of mitigation of punishment [the area of recommendation and sentence], and imprisonment for not more than one year;

2. The crime of this case in which the sentence of sentence is to be sentenced is not likely to be committed by deceiving the victim and deceiving about KRW 21.6 million in total.

On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendant's perception of committing the crime of this case and his mistake is divided.

In addition, the defendant did not pay accommodation expenses while living together with his family while having a very difficult economic situation, such as business failure and auction of his residence.