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

(e).

On January 22, 2014, at the D office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would give priority to the victim E with the payment of construction deposit, which would enable the victim E to do so at the end of February 2, 2014 or the end of March 2014.” This construction deposit would be returned on February 28, 2014.

However, in fact, even though the Defendant was promoting G development project plans in the Republic of Korea, the Defendant did not have any specific project plan, but did not have any specific plan to secure funds, so there was no intention or ability to permit the implementation of the punishment construction even if the Defendant received the construction deposit from the victim, and there was no intention or ability to return the said construction deposit.

On January 23, 2014, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 30 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the substitute part);

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A contract for logging and livering construction works;

1. Application of the G business plan statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommending punishment] general fraud (less than KRW 100 million) where considerable damage has been recovered from mitigation area (one month to one year) (special mitigation) [the decision of sentence] where the decision of sentence is merely a simple business plan which is merely a desired matter, and it is not good that the fraud of money under the name of construction subcontract is not a crime.

Although there is a need to strictly punish the defendant in light of the fact that there are many criminal records of the defendant and that there is no agreement with the victim, the amount of damage has been returned to the victim, and the same criminal records of the defendant have been returned once.