However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Around October 200, the Defendant was able to work together with the victim B and the vehicle parts company and became aware of, around that time, the Defendant came to undergo a eternal teaching system on the premise of marriage from around that time, and around 2003, the relationship between the victimized person and the damaged person was 1 to 2 years after around 2003 to learn cosmetic art.

On February 15, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, “The Defendant, at a minor place, posted the fraternity and installment savings in order to raise our marriage funds,” saying, “The Defendant, at the main place of the transfer of money, has continuously collected the money on his/her own, and he/she would live together with her husband by marriage.”

However, the defendant was married with C on December 22, 2006 and gave birth to the first child on December 4, 2006, and up to now four children have been married with the victim, and even if there was no intention to marry with the victim, there was no intention to use the money for his own cost of living, and there was no intention to prepare the marriage fund with the victim.

The Defendant received 500,000 won from the injured party to the Daegu Bank account (D) account in the name of the Defendant for the same day, and received 6,950,000 won in total over 79 times from around that time to February 28, 2016, such as the statement in the list of crimes in the attached crime.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to take money by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the specifications of transactions by account and detailed statements of deposits transactions by account;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act and Article 347 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [the scope of the recommended punishment] In the area of mitigation (one month to one year) (one year), in the area of mitigation (one month to one year), in the case where punishment is not imposed, or in the case where considerable damage was restored [the decision of sentence], in the case where the defendant separates his mistake, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant;