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

The Defendant is a person engaged in the removal business with the trade name “B”.

1. On November 9, 2017, the Defendant concluded a contract on the removal of the said farm with the victim who believed the horses to the effect that, at the victim D’s office located in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the Defendant concluded a removal contract of KRW 120,000,000,000 from the F in Pyeongtaek-si E’s removal site, and that, if the scrap metal is insufficient, the Defendant would make up for the shortage at the site of removal as described in paragraph (2), concluded a contract on the removal of the said farm with the victim, and received from the victim the sum of KRW 20,00,000,000,000,000,000 won, including KRW 10,000 on the same day, 10,000,000 from G’s account on the 13th of the same month.

However, the scrap metal in the above F was only one half of the amount presented by the defendant, and the scrap metal in the site of removal as set forth in paragraph (2) was a situation in which the victim was not able to give rise to such deception, thereby obtaining the above money from the victim.

2. On November 2017, the Defendant was transferred KRW 20 million, including KRW 4 million on the 20th day of the same month, KRW 15 million on the 20th day of the same month, and KRW 20 million on the 27th day of the same month to the H bank account of G by stating that “the Defendant is required to remove the lifts” to the victim at the site of the removal of the I building in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and that personnel expenses are not sufficient.”

However, most of the scrap metal in the above site were completed by the relocating Construction Business Operator, and the remaining scrap metal did not have any scrap metal that could have been given to the existing equipment business entity or the body of the Defendant in the situation that the Defendant could have been able to perform the removal work, and it did not have any intention or ability to repay the borrowed money due to the absence of the money, and acquired the said money from the victim by means of the said deception even though there was no intention or ability to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Each contract for removal works;

1. Inquiry into the details of account transactions;