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

Around May 24, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B introduced through Dooin C, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If he/she makes an investment of KRW 30 million in the listed coin through B via Dooin, he/she would, without any damage to the investment principal, pay KRW 54 million, an amount excluding 20% of the fee, which is excluding 20% of the fee, from September 24, 2018, to September 24, 2018,” and then, on September 24, 2018, the Defendant paid the investment principal and profits together.

‘A receipt shall be drawn up and issued to the victim.

However, it is impossible to guarantee the principal to the victim because there is no property or income without any particular property or income in the state of credit risk rating at the time, and there is no property for the defendant to compensate for the loss even though the possibility of loss of principal is expected to be sufficiently predicted through the listed co-ownership transaction.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained 30 million won from the new bank account (Account Number: D) in the name of the Defendant on the same day from the victim and acquired it by transfer.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement as witness B and C's each legal statement;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel of the investigation report (in the event of confirmation of the results of credit information verification), accusation statement, receipts, notes, account transfer statement, each investigation report (in the case of reference E phone calls and accompanying details of investment funds)

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant did not promise the victim to pay the investment principal and twice the profits, and all the money received from the victim used the money for the purpose of purchasing the listed co-ownership, so the Defendant did not commit deception.

2. Determination

(a) The deception, which is a requirement for fraud, is all active, active, all of the obligations of good faith and sincerity that should be observed in property transaction.