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

On February 2, 2006, the Defendant stated that “Around the 2006 Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, “A person who was a captain of a fire-fighting unit in the military service in the military service in the military is currently a head of a military unit, and there is a new construction plan for a new unit. The construction cost is equivalent to KRW 6 billion, and the project cost will be able to take the test construction from the main place of the project.”

However, there was no new construction project plan in the above military unit, and the defendant was a plan to use the money from the victim to repay the defendant's debt, and there was no intention or ability to allow the victim to receive the test construction.

Nevertheless, as above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received the total sum of KRW 139,501,700 from the victim from February 8, 2006 to July 25, 2008 to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account as the activity expenses for the new construction of the military unit, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of a detailed statement of transaction in passbook, details of transaction in Nonghyup, and statutes governing letter copies;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Supreme Court’s sentencing sentencing guidelines set forth in the argument of this case, including the following: (a) the reason for and the result of the crime of sentencing under Article 32(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for the Dismissal of Application for Compensation; (b) the circumstances after the crime; (c) the circumstances after the crime; (d) the agreement between the victim and the victim; (d) the defendant’s serious reflectivity; and (e) there is sufficient room to evaluate that the statute of limitations has already been expired for each of the individual criminal facts constituting the instant crime.