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

On July 15, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act at the Seoul Central District Court on July 15, 2013, and the judgment has become final and conclusive on November 13 of the same year.

On January 18, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating, “The Defendant would return Sck immediately if he/she borrowed money from Sck if he/she borrowed money from Sck to M&A.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had been registered as a bad credit holder due to the absence of a certain occupation. Since the Defendant had been registered as a bad credit holder in excess of 25 million won without property registered under the Defendant’s name, there was no income from the absence of a certain occupation, etc., even if he borrowed money from the victim, he was willing to use it as a livelihood fee or personal debt repayment, and if he was unable to borrow bonds for the purpose of lending bonds for Sam Young Holdings M&A, he did not immediately have the intent or ability to return it to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 45 million won from the victim’s account in the name of E designated by the Defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Previous records: Application of inquiries, such as criminal records, and criminal records, and Acts and subordinate statutes to report (report on attachment of criminal records A by a suspect);

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

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order was not restored, the victim knew of the economic situation of the defendant at the time of the instant case.