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

The Defendant, around January 5, 2013, at G cafeteria located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, may pay money to the Victim E for investment in futures options projects.

In the absence of cash, it shall be settled with a credit card, and if it is invested by 8 million won, it may be calculated by 240,000 won per day, and 1.2 million won may be received as a revenue on January 10, 2013.

If an investment of KRW 10 million is made, the return on investment may be up to 300%.

However, the Defendant did not use the money for personal expenses or transfer it to H and I accounts, etc. to prevent the Defendant from using the money for investment in the futures option project by receiving the money from the damaged party, but did not have any objective data that the Defendant would be able to pay the money to the victim as above even though he/she used the money for the stock investment. However, the Defendant could not pay 300% of the profits when he/she received an investment in KRW 11 million.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim as above and let the victim receive cash services from the defendant's office located in Songpa-gu Seoul Songpa-guJ from January 5, 2013 to August 2, 2013, or operated by the defendant.

It received a total of KRW 129 million over 28 times by allowing K or L companies to settle credit cards.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol of examination of the suspect against the accused by the prosecution (including the cross-examination);

1. An investment application;

1. Statement on shareholder participation;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel made investment in M and N engaged in futures trading on their own judgment and responsibility, and the defendant merely delivered investment funds to M and N, and they did not deceiving the victim.

It is argued that ① the victim made an investment in belief that the defendant made a direct investment or business by soliciting the defendant to grant profits from the defendant.