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

The defendant is between the victim C and the friendly Gu that has come to their own with the victim C.

1. On January 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim via e-mail, stating, “Around January 2010, the Defendant’s direct importation is impossible because he/she limited from manufacturing source to export-prohibited items. However, if he/she purchases and sells money from large retailers, Internet shopping malls in Japan, it would have a high profitability if he/she loads and sells money to Korea, the principal will be guaranteed, and the profits will be 20% per annum.”

However, in fact, the defendant could not properly proceed due to the increase in the United Nations and lack of goods supply. Even if the defendant received money from the victim, it was thought that it will be used to pay personal debts, and there was no intention or ability to return the profits to the victim.

Around February 3, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was delivered KRW 10 million to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant to the victim.

2. Around February 18, 2010, the Defendant, via e-mail, concluded that “the Defendant would promote the Defendant’s business of using health ingredients, other than the original import business,” imported a unique consortium food material from abroad as a monopoly, and received the recognition from the Food and Drug Administration as an individual recognized form of raw material, he/she may impose more money than the upper level of money, thereby making an additional investment.”

However, in fact, since the Defendant was notified of the fact that it could not be supplied by D, which is the Japanese supplier, the Defendant promoted, it was not thought that it will be invested in the low-income import business even if he received money from the victim, and the health food raw material business was not confirmed specific profitability, so there was no intention or ability to return the proceeds to the victim.

The Defendant, as above, deceiving the victim and deceiving him from the victim on March 2, 2010.