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.

1. On November 17, 2012, the criminal defendant against the victim B made a false statement to the victim at the victim’s house located in Thai-gun, Thai-gun, Thai-gun, Thai-gun, stating that “The victim B would work as a seafarer because he/she would work as a seafarer on board as an advance payment, which would change 16 million won.”

However, there was no intention or ability to perform the work on board even if the injured party receives the advance payment from the injured party.

On November 17, 2012, the Defendant deceptioned the victim as above, and acquired 16 million won in cash from the victim’s house on November 17, 2012, and 23th of the same month, the Defendant acquired 15 million won in cash from the Defendant’s house located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Defendant acquired 16 million won in advance from the victim’s house.

2. On December 31, 2012, the Defendant against the victim D sent KRW 10 million as advance to the victim D in Thai-gun, Thai-gun, Thai-gun, Thai-gun, Thai-gun, “I am on board and work as a seafarer.”

In other words, the phrase “ was false.”

However, there was no intention or ability to perform the work on board even if the injured party receives the advance payment from the injured party.

Defendant deceptioned the victim as above and acquired 10 million won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (F) in the name of E on December 31, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made in relation to D and B;

1. Each complaint filed in D and B;

1. A copy of bankbook;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions in the name of E;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the crime is not good in light of the background and method of the crime of this case, and that there is a record of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc. under unfavorable circumstances, the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime of this case, the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victims.