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

On March 2013, at a place where it is impossible for the Defendant to know the place of payment, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, stating that “If the Defendant has lent funds to pay for the card, the Defendant shall pay interest equivalent to 10% of the principal per month, and the principal shall be returned at any time, on the grounds that the card payment business, in which the Defendant had worked, is repeated in order to give interest to the lending party, and in order to give interest to the lending party, it is difficult to repay the borrowed money to the lending party, and thus, the Defendant cannot repay the borrowed money to the lending party, even if having borrowed money from the other party, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the money.”

Defendant 30,000,000 won by a new bank account (E) in the name of Defendant D around March 22, 2013 from the person who deceiving the victim as above and who is deceiving the victim, and around March 22, 2013 from the victim.

4.1. Minority 20,000,000 won, and the same year.

7. Around 31.31. A total of KRW 63,000,000 including around KRW 13,000,000 were obtained and acquired by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the accused by the prosecution (including part concerning the C confrontation);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and C;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [the scope of recommendation] The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act / [the scope of punishment / [10 million won or less] the mitigation area (1 month or year to 100 million won] [the person who is specially mitigated], or where considerable damage was restored [the decision of sentence] Defendant committed the same kind of crime in this case in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the same kind of crime in this case, even though he had a record of being sentenced to the punishment two times of imprisonment and a fine for the same crime

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and made his mistake.