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

On November 15, 2008, the Defendant presented to the victim E one Promissory Notes (the check number holder No. 00734068, Feb. 25, 2009) of the issuance of Chang Construction Co., Ltd. (the check number No. 00734068, Feb. 25, 2009) in Suwon-si Co., Ltd. located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant presented to the victim E a normal promissory note, and “three-month foot”.

A bill of KRW 50 million may be found in cash at the last bank.

The amount of promissory notes with the exception of interest paid on a monthly basis was false.

However, the above promissory note was purchased in 5,000,000 won and could not be settled normally on the payment date. At the time, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to settle the above promissory note because there was no certain income or property.

On November 17, 2008, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and acquired a total of KRW 42,500,000 from the victim as a discount of the bill.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Some of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. A copy of a promissory note, a certificate of full registration, a loan certificate, and

1. Application of investigative reports (verification of forged or forged securities)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] of Article 62-2 of the Act on the Protection and observation of the crime of this case and the reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order has no basic area (6 months to 100 million or less) [the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] [the defendant is not bad in the nature of the crime in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the amount of damage, etc., and the fact that the defendant agreed to recover the damage of the victim and received a letter of tolerance, in consideration of all the reasons for sentencing.