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

On October 20, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution for embezzlement at the Seoul Central District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2015.

On September 16, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 700,000 per month to the victim D in Songpa-gu Seoul on September 16, 2015, with the principal paid by November 15, 2015.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant borrowed the above money from the injured party due to a large amount of debt to the third party, he did not have the intent to pay the interest of KRW 700,000 per month or to pay the principal after two months.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 20 million, including KRW 10,77 million, and KRW 9,300,000,000,000, from the victim, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (F) in the name of the Defendant, a branch of the Defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Pampers and business registration certificates, contracts for solar power generation facilities, and receipts for G use;

1. A copy of a bankbook, account transaction details, and passbook in the E name;

1. A certificate, a copy of passbook, or a loan certificate;

1. Previous convictions as stated in the judgment: An investigation report (a report on attachment of suspect criminal records, reporting on self-payment thereof), investigation report (verification of the date of confirmation of the judgment), search of consolidated cases, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about criminal history;

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

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That the reason for sentencing Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act was that the Defendant denied the crime and did not recover from the damage, taking into account the fact that the Defendant could have been tried at the same time with the case in which the judgment became final and conclusive, and that the amount of damage was not much much to be sentenced to a sentence;