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

On October 23, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for embezzlement at the Suwon Friwon, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 30th of the same month.

On July 2, 2013, the Defendant called the victim B (37 years) by telephone at a place where it is unknown to him on July 2, 2013, that “to lend money to him/her rapidly, and to use it only when his/her father returned to his/her father, and to pay it when he/she is inherited.”

However, in fact, the defendant committed a debt amounting to 180 million won without any particular property, and the monthly wage received at the workplace has to be used to repay living expenses and existing loans. Whether the defendant's father is entitled to inheritance from his father or not has no intention or ability to repay the debt even if he borrowed money from the injured party because it was in an unsound situation.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim by the above method, received 29.5 million won from the victim to the national bank account (Account Number C) in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Each investigation report (including accompanying documents);

1. A written inquiry of transaction details and a detailed statement of passbook transaction;

1. Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and the application of the statutes on investigation reports (Attachment to the judgment);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act to treat concurrent crimes: Provided, That the first sentence of Article 39 (1) shall be applicable;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act include: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided and agreed with the victim; and (b) the equity in the case where the judgment was rendered as stated in the Defendant’s first head’s judgment is taken into account in sentencing.