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

On May 15, 2015, the Defendant received a telephone from a singishing staff member who was able to provide a loan counseling, and agreed to withdraw the amount of singishing damage deposited into the Defendant’s account and to receive fees in return for the withdrawal of the amount of singishing damage, as instructed by the Defendant.

around 12:40 on May 15, 2015, the Defendant informed the business bank account number in the name of the Defendant in order to assist the victim in receiving money from the victim to another account by deceiving him/her to the effect that the victim’s account was used as a passbook by misrepresenting the victim’s staff member of the above name-based 49 U.S. government apartment building at the central point of the enterprise bank from the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government KF apartment building; around 12:40 on May 15, 2015, the Defendant sent KRW 36 million to the business bank account (D) of the Defendant’s name on May 14: 19, 2015; the Defendant sent KRW 200,000 from the central point of the above business bank at the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office to the third party; and then withdrawn KRW 300,000,000 from the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s name on May 14, 2015 to the third party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement and receipt of transaction details;

1. Data on replies (2,6) and attached data (the details of account and currency) each time;

1. Account transactions (netly 12);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (verification of the details of telephone conversations made by the person under surveillance immediately after the entrance into and departure from the relevant money for damage);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act mitigated for aiding and abetting, and Article 55(1)3 of the same Act

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The crime of this case with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order is socially accepted.