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.

피고인은 2015. 2. 4. 경 불상지에서, 평소 알고 지내던 피해자 C에게 “ 땡 처리 양말이 나왔고 늦으면 물건을 못산다.

땡 처리 양말을 현금을 주고 매입하여 창고에 보관하다가 되팔면 많은 수익이 발생하니, 그 수익을 나누어 줄 테니 1,000만 원을 입금 해라.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

그러나 사실 피고인은 피해 자로부터 돈을 받더라도 땡 처리 양물을 구입하여 창고에 보관하거나 이를 판매할 의사나 능력이 없어 피해자에 게 수익금을 주거나 돈을 돌려줄 의사나 능력이 없었다.

피고인은 이에 속은 피해 자로부터 2015. 2. 4. 경 피고인 명 의의 우리은행 계좌 (D) 로 1,000만 원을 송금 받고, 2015. 3. 23. 경 불상지에서 피해자에게 “ 갑자기 땡 처리 물건이 나왔다.

땡 처리 양말을 팔아 이익이 남으면 둘이 나누어 가지자. ”라고 기망하여 피고인 명의의 위 우리은행 계좌로 3,000만 원을 송금 받았다.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property worth KRW 40 million by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the date of the second public trial, in the case);

1. Part concerning C’s statement in the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant by the prosecution

1. Statement made to C by the police in the protocol; and

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes entered in the details of passbook transactions (No. 2 list of evidence);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (elective of imprisonment);

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

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 of Article 32(1)3 and Article 32(2) and Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss an Application for Compensation Order (the existence or scope of liability for damages is unclear and thus it is deemed unreasonable to issue an order for compensation) [the scope of applicable sentences under the law] is 15 years.