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

1. Around November 7, 1997, the Defendant stated that “D” located in D, and that “E” used “E” as an employee from November 17, 1997 to December 16, 1997, the Defendant would work as an employee from November 17, 1997 to December 16, 197.”

However, even if the defendant receives a prepaid payment from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to work as an employee at the main point.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, obtained 13 million won as a prepaid payment from the victim by deceiving the victim.

2. Around 18:00 on April 22, 2001, the Defendant told the victim that “I will work in front of the payment KRW 11 million” at the “I shop” operated by the victim H, which is located in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seojin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.”

However, even if the defendant receives a prepaid payment from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to work as an employee at the main point.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained 11 million won as a prepaid payment from the victim.

3. On May 14, 2001, the Defendant stated that “The victim’s “Leju” operated by the Victim K, which is located in the Kunsan-siJ on May 14, 2001, said that “the Defendant would be extremely able to pay 16 million won advance payment to the victim.”

However, even if the defendant receives a prepaid payment from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to work as an employee at the main point.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, obtained 16 million won as a prepaid payment from the victim by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. The police statement of M, N, orO;

3. Application of immigration Acts and subordinate statutes on individuals;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;

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

3. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the offense is bad in light of the method and content of the instant crime, etc.