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

The defendant of "2016 Highest 1048" has the right to permit self-net fishery business suitable for E at the beginning of Gangwon-do to the victim F, who is the actual owner of E, in the D multilateral banks located in Sejong-si around July 1, 2008.

In addition, it is possible to obtain a license for self-fishery business by seeking a license for self-fishery business in exchange for the license for self-fishery business, which makes a false statement that the license for self-fishery business would be purchased in the name of the owner of the vessel until August 10, 2008, as the price and expense would be KRW 85 million.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the right to permit the fishery of fishing at the time of the instant case, and it was clear whether the Defendant could seek the right to permit the fishery of fishing with the right to permit the fishery of fishing, and the Defendant was in bad credit standing, and the Defendant was thought to use the money for the cost of living with the intent to receive the money from the damaged party, so there was no intention or ability to purchase the right to permit the fishery of fishing of fishing.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) received the remittance of KRW 15 million from the Suhyup Bank account (H) in the name of the Defendant at two times for the same day from the victim; and (c) received a total of KRW 75 million from July 17, 2008 until July 17, 2008, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

Around July 1, 2013, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would deliver 20 million won to the victim I by July 30, 2013 at the Ansando Do Do Do Do Do Do dong, which is located in the central dong, for sale at KRW 35 million.” The Defendant stated that “The Defendant will deliver 20 million won as the first down payment and intermediate payment to the domestic owner by July 30, 2013.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant was not the owner of the above J, and did not make any effort to mediate the trade between the owner K and the victim of the said J, he did not have the intent or ability to transfer the J to the victim.