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

Around March 2019, the Defendant requested the victim E, the representative director of DD Co., Ltd., the customer, to pay the transport cost within one month from the date of the dismissal of the cargo, at the office of the Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was operated by the Defendant in Seopopopo City B.

However, in fact, since December 2017, the company's profit was operated as a deficit, and the company's profit was predicted at the time of transaction, and there was no intention or ability to pay the transport cost to the victim because of the large personal debt of the company and the defendant.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received cargo transport services of an amount equivalent to KRW 407,00 from the victim, and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount, and by deceiving the victim 44 times in total from around that time to May 30, 2019, as stated in the attached crime list, and acquired pecuniary benefits by receiving cargo transport services of an amount equivalent to KRW 32,989,000 in total from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant's partial statement;

1. A tax invoice for complaint filed by D Co., Ltd.;

1. A credit information history, each land, building, and ship registry (the defendant and his defense counsel denies the defendant's intention, but according to the result of the examination of the above evidence, the defendant's company continued to pay back the enemy on June 18, 2019, and the defendant was also deemed to have not been able to anticipate its possibility at the time of the immediately preceding transaction in this case. Thus, the above argument is rejected). Thus, the above argument is not accepted.

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

1. The act of deceiving the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act was not active, and the instant case was rendered.