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

Criminal facts were organized mainly on the facts that meet the requirements for the composition of crimes.

On October 20, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract to lease Seocho-gu Seoul E-Ba B02 head on behalf of the victim victim D on behalf of the victim victim D.

On October 22, 2010, the Defendant received the victim’s “F’s immediately preceding lessee G and talked well” from the victim at a Buddhist place.

The rent deposit amount of KRW 90,00 has been used as a locked loan.

As such, F will be exempted from the payment of KRW 50,00,00,00,00, which is a part of the leased deposit that F has been remitted to D. D.

A false statement was made to the effect that “The remainder of the rent deposit shall be KRW 40 million directly from F.”

However, the defendant did not have to borrow KRW 90,00 from G as the tenant immediately before.

The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received 50,000 won from the injured party on the same day; (c) received directly 40,000 won from F on October 23, 2010 on behalf of the injured party; and (d) acquired 90,000 won from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the witness G in the second public trial records;

1. Entry of part of the witness D in the third public trial protocol;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant promised to borrow KRW 90,000,000,000,000, which is to be returned by G from the injured party, between G and Haman on October 2010. Accordingly, the Defendant directly received KRW 90,00 from the injured party.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim.

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is G before the Defendant received a total of KRW 90 million from the victim and F.