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

From around 191, the Defendant opened a cash station and a cash account in the name of C around December 27, 1993, while operating a mutually agreed household point of “E” in Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Busan and Seoyang-si.

On November 28, 201, the Defendant, in collusion with C, issued a check number F, par value 5,00,000, and one copy of household check in the name of C on February 28, 2012 on the date of issuance, and issued them from around that time to January 15, 2012, as indicated in the [Attachment Table 1, 3, 6, and 12] No total of KRW 44,00,000,00 for total nine face value as stated in the [Attachment Table 1, 3, and 12], but did not receive at the date of payment for reasons of shortage of deposits or non-transaction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant C and police suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant C

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each accusation note (as regards the period Nos. 1, 3, 6 through 12 in order);

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the sentence of imprisonment shall be imposed by selecting and punishing a person by taking into account the following: (a) the trust in the transaction of the check was impaired by the instant crime; (b) the sum of the face value of the unclaimed check is not significant; and (c) the Defendant recognized and reflects his mistake; (d) there are some circumstances to be somewhat taken into account in the circumstances leading to the instant crime; and (e) a large number of defaulted checks were recovered after the commencement of the investigation; and (e) in the case of each defaulted check listed in the [Attachment] Nos. 1, 6, and 10 in the annexed List of Crimes, it appears that the transaction companies, which received payment in kind from the Defendant and promised to recover, failed to return the check to a third party; and (e) the Defendant