A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. As to each of the frauds and attempted frauds by Defendant (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) (1) in cases where the victim of the crime in this part is deemed as F individual as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant is entitled to institute a public prosecution only upon filing a complaint under Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act, since the victim’s external third village as the victim’s wife was a relative under the Civil Act. As the victim revoked his/her complaint against the Defendant on August 20, 2014, the lower court should have dismissed this part of the public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However

(2) According to the actual facts, the counterpart to each claim seizure and collection order as stated in the facts charged and the goods payment claim lawsuit filed by E (hereinafter “E”) is not a F individual but a stock company G (hereinafter “G”), and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as it is, as it is, finding the victim of this part of the facts charged to F.

(3) Meanwhile, even in cases where the victim of this part of the crime is deemed G, it is deemed that the Defendant, on the account books of E, uses 50 million won, paid by the Defendant on September 14, 201, for the repayment of the obligation related to rehabilitation claims in relation to a pair of automobiles Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Both automobiles”), and the remainder 3,576,480 won was returned to the victim G account on December 30, 201, and the fact that the declaration of intention in the authentic deed of promissory note KRW 300 million was null and void due to a false declaration of agreement, etc., even if the expression of intention in the authentic deed of KRW 240 million was invalid due to such a false declaration of intention, etc., the Defendant without any legal knowledge and trust in all procedures such as its preparation and return, execution through a nullification judgment, and trust in the explanation of M, the head of the office of the attorney-at-law’s office, and the statement related to the attempted fraud should not be consistent with this part of this part.