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

On February 2, 2009, the Defendant recommended the victim D through C to make an investment by “a business that imports heavy vehicles in Korea or purchases and sells forfeited vehicles, etc. in China, and upon investment, would distribute high profits.” The Defendant agreed to provide the victim with a face value 500,000 won check and a face value 12,000 won check at face value when the victim demanded the guarantee of principal.

However, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to conduct the trading business in the middle and the two copies of the checks issued as above, and that the said checks cannot guarantee the principal of the victim as a check with no commercial value.

On March 3, 2009, the Defendant deceptioned the victim, and transferred the bill to the head of Tong in the name of the Defendant on March 3, 2009, and the same year.

3. 17.10,00 square meters, a bill, and the same year.

6. 1.60,000 square meters, and the same year.

6.6.30,000 received respectively, and thus remitted or delivered in total 6.9,00 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. A witness D legal statement;

1. Part of the witness C’s legal statement;

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

1. Second-time protocol concerning suspect examination of the police in C;

1. Statement of each police statement regarding D;

1. Application of relevant documents, such as an investment contract, each check copy, payment note, and e-mail, and e-mail statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution Act is limited to 50,000 won of the money received in relation to the secondhand trading business of this case, and the remaining 190,000 won of the money was invested by the victim in other business unrelated to this case, and the victim was expressed the check, but it was notified that there was no substantial security value at the time of delivery, and the secondhand trading business was actually conducted.