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

On December 2, 2006, the Defendant stated that “In the house of the victim D, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, 101 Dong 802, the Defendant subscribed to pension insurance for the victim as follows: “In the event that an investment is made in a construction company in Bupyeong-do with a loan by collateraling real estate, profits would be high, and as a result, profits would be high. As a result, the Defendant paid monthly pension premiums and loan interest interest and the principal would be repaid until December 27, 2011.”

However, at the time, most of the loans were intended to be used by the Defendant for the repayment of the Defendant’s obligation, etc. because the Defendant’s economic situation was difficult, and the obligation was reached about 35 million won, and there was no separate property or profit. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal to the victim as well as the monthly pension contributions.

Around December 27, 2006, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 95,560,000 in total from the Defendant’s account around December 27, 2006.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the third court date);

1. Statement of each police statement regarding D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on authentic deeds and details of passbook transactions to victims;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act suspended execution (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the motive means to commit the instant crime, the age and happiness environment of the Defendant, the Defendant’s confession and reflects the instant crime, the husband’s divorce with the husband, and living together with the married couple, and there is no less punishment exceeding the fine, and all circumstances, such as the fact that the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant, although the damage recovery was not achieved in full, by mutual consent with the victim, etc.);