However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In fact, the Defendant had no specific business plan to import and supply the Chinese mathy. At the time of receiving investment funds from the victim B, the Defendant was in bad credit standing, such as credit card payments and overdue loans, and the victim attempted to use the transferred money as debt repayment and living expenses. Even if the victim received money from the victim as investment funds, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to import and deliver the domestic mathy.

Nevertheless, on February 26, 2015, the Defendant, at the same time, received 50,000 won from the victim’s account immediately from May 11, 2017, he/she acquired 380,000 won in total from the time when he/she received 50,000 won from the victim’s bank account from the victim, from May 11, 2017 to the time when he/she received 50,000 won from the victim’s bank account (D).

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused in court;

1. Details of each account transaction in the police statement concerning B;

1. Application of police investigation report-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation under Article 62 (1) of the Suspension of Execution;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to ten years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria (the determination of types) shall be limited to fraud (the type 2) at least 10 million won and less than 500 million won.