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

On May 12, 2015, the Defendant offered two copies of electronic bills equivalent to KRW 300,000,000,000 to the victim C (30,000,000 won, at the latest 15,00,000 won, after having entered the investment amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 within one week to the victim C (48,000) through B at a closed place.

However, on April 2, 2015, the Defendant prepared a written agreement with the E (State) located in Japan, with which he/she had the technology for the electric storage equipment using the early wheelchairs, to “F” by investing KRW 5 billion within two weeks, but the Defendant was in a situation where the establishment of “F” would not occur due to the lack of funds to be invested. On April 22, 2015, the Defendant entered into a written agreement with H representative director of the G G GG in charge of dispute settlement and agreed on the future investment with H on April 22, 2015, but it did not comply with all the prerequisite for the future investment, such as technology in Korea and financing of KRW 5 billion or more, in which Japan E (State) had no capacity to obtain an investment agreement of KRW 500,000,000,000,000 from other LG or another place, and there was no uncertainty of the agreement with the Defendant and the issuer of the said electronic bill with the intent to use the bill within a short period of time.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 225 million, including KRW 50 million around May 15, 2015, around May 18, 2015, and KRW 175 million around May 18, 2015, from the victim, from the J Union account (Account Number K) in the name of the Defendant in the same business relationship with the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C, H and B;

1. Each protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution (I, 3).