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

On September 21, 2007, the Defendant, in collusion with D on September 21, 2007, stated that “The victim is well aware of the head of the department of KB real estate trust affiliated with KB real estate trust affiliated with KB real estate trust affiliated with KB real estate trust affiliated with KB real estate G at the “F coffee shop in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 2007,” and said that “The Defendant will receive the PF loan without a framework.” The Defendant would allow the 65 billion won loan to be granted within 10 days at the face of the week, and would return the brokerage fee if the loan is not granted.”

However, in fact, the defendant and D did not have the intention or ability to purchase the above loan, and even without the loan, there was no intention or ability to return the money received from the victim.

As such, the Defendant conspired with D to deception the victim, and received from the victim a total of 60 million won cashier’s checks, which is a referral fee for loan history, in collusion with D, a total of 60 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Two times each protocol of interrogation of the accused and D by the prosecution (including G substitute part);

1. Each police statement to G and J;

1. The defendant and defense counsel asserts to the effect that each check, consulting or administrative service contract, each copy of the notice of intent to issue the certificate of right to benefit in security trust, and each copy of the notice of intent to issue the certificate of right to benefit in security trust, are merely because the victim failed to meet the requisite conditions for the execution thereof, and that the defendant and D did not have the intent of deceiving or deceiving

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., the Defendant and D are well aware that the victim merely believed that the Defendant and D were able to obtain a trust deed, and that the victim did not acquire the ownership of the site which caused the PF loan at the time of receiving the money.