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

On November 12, 2008, the Defendant sent a phone call to the victim C at an unsound place, and concluded that “The Chairperson of EF, a stock company, which made the Defendant a contract for a set-off of a set-off of a set-off of a set-off of a set-off of a set-off of a set-off of trees and tree-type construction, would reverse the agreement without giving the Defendant any further notice of KRW 30 million. If the Defendant loans more than KRW 30 million, then the Defendant would have paid back with the proceeds of the construction as well as KRW 50 million.”

However, facts are that D merely demanded the defendant to introduce the construction cost, and D or F did not have any demand for additional costs to the defendant or the victim, and the defendant received money from the victim and was thought to use some of them for personal purposes.

Around November 14, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Statements concerning the accused in part of the protocol of interrogation of the suspect (including cross-examination of the C);

1. The description of each part of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant or D (including part of the cross-examination of the C);

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. The defendant's assertion and judgment of the account details of this case and his defense counsel stated that the defendant should grant the introduction fee in return for the introduction of the "pream and wooden construction" of this case, and they did not receive any additional construction deposit, but they stated that the defendant should grant the additional construction deposit. 5 million won out of the 20 million won, which was received as the introduction expense, was used by the defendant with the consent of D with the expenses already paid by the defendant, etc., and that D paid 20 million won to G and H in addition to 5 million won of its own money as the commission of construction work. Thus, the defendant did not receive 20 million won as the commission of construction work. However, according to the above evidence, the victim's investigation agency is examined.