However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year and six months from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On September 2007, the Defendant calls to the victim C at a closed place, and there is no cash by putting money on the real estate at present.

It is intended to repay the land with the loan of money by disposing of the land in which it is paid.

"........... the victim shows the land located in the Sinyeong-dong, Busan, and the land inside the river."

The Internet is known, but it also remains in the bathing guidance.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, there was no land owned by the Defendant, and there was no intention or ability to repay the debt amounting to KRW 16 million due to the business failure at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 12 million won as a loan from the injured party on February 1, 2008, from the injured party on or around February 1, 2008.

(h)on April 11, 200,000,000 won;

(h)on July 2, 200,000,000 won;

(h) 8.13. 13. 50,000 won around the same day;

D. On December 1, 198, a total of KRW 18.5 million was remitted on five occasions, including KRW 2 million.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Presentation of Materials by an complainant);

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the choice of punishment (a) of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive charge of fraud, and a prosecutor charged the instant case as concurrent crimes, but the Defendant appears to have repeatedly committed the same kind of crime under the single and continuous criminal intent. Thus, the instant case constitutes a single crime)

Imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is that the amount of fraud of this case was not written, and the damage was not repaid even after about 9 to 10 years have passed since the occurrence of this case, and the judgment of this case was conducted, and the damage was discharged only after the trial of this case. However, the defendant is against the crime, and the defendant is against the crime.