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.

The Defendant, around September 24, 2009, at a convenience store where it is difficult to know the trade name in the apartment complex located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu distribution Dong, Seoul, the Defendant deposited KRW 40 million to the victim C after depositing KRW 10 billion in the branch account of the company bank in the name of D, which requires the funds for the business, and then withdrawing the money again after depositing KRW 10 billion in the Busan branch account of the company bank in the name of D, which is in need of the funds, and entrusted to the Busan branch office of the company in the name of the financial shareholder. If the implementation is not made as above, the Defendant would return the above KRW 40 million to the new bank account by the 16:00 of the following day.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, even if the Defendant received KRW 40 million as the cost of raising the deposit, he was scheduled to use it for other purposes such as paying personal debts. Therefore, there was no intention or ability to collect KRW 10 billion and deposit it into the account in the name of D, or return KRW 40 million.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and immediately received 40 million won as the cost of raising the deposit from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and D;

1. Statement made by the witness C and D in the second public trial protocol;

1. Statement of witness E in the third public trial protocol;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of the defendant or D by the prosecution;

1. Part C of the statement made by the police in the suspect interrogation protocol against the accused (the part concerning the statement made by the accused is inadmissible as it denies contents);

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the original receipt of KRW 40 million;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Taking into account the fact that the agreement is reached smoothly with the victim);

1. Article 32(1)3 and Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit for Dismissal of Application for Compensation (applicant for Compensation) agreed upon upon payment of the amount of damage related to this case on September 27, 2016, and thereafter.