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

The Defendant, on January 25, 2016, indicated “2016 C public performance ticket contract,” and “2016 C public performance ticket contract,” etc., which was falsely made to the victim B in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If he/she loans KRW 100 million, he/she plans the D public performance ticket at the present Busan-gu and Changwon, he/she will use it as a fund for the process of the above contact, and pay all the existing debts to him/her.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not think that the above borrowed money will be used for the repayment of the existing debt in the situation where the debt is accumulated as the enemy of the performance business continuously and the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money with the container revenue.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim and forcing the victim to transfer KRW 78 million to the corporate bank account in the name of E, a creditor of the Defendant on the same day, from that time until June 10, 2016, and was delivered KRW 145,80,000,000 by deceiving the victim five times in total, as shown in the crime list, as shown in the attached Table, from June 10, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning B;

1. Each letter, notice of the assignment of claims, each letter, correspondence photograph, and a copy of each printing slip contract;

1. Written replies of each specification of transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to attach data submitted by a complainant and to verify contractual matters with F);

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

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and the proviso of Article 50 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is not good in light of the purpose of sentencing, the content of deception and the amount of deception, etc. of this case. On the other hand, there are no criminal records that have been punished for the same criminal act of the defendant, and there are no criminal records that have been divided after the crime, and there are other records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, character, family relationship, living environment, circumstances leading to the crime