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

The defendant, around December 16, 2015, had a notary public in Chuncheon-si D and D around 16, 2015, in E, that he had a defect in the business to operate the Smarket in Chuncheon-si H, Inc., a corporation substantially operating within the inside of the city, Chuncheon-si. The defendant has already invested KRW 80 million, and the building had also been located. Accordingly, the non-paid construction cost of KRW 200 million and the previous partner were located.

If the sum of KRW 400,000 to be paid to I is KRW 600,00,000, it may be permitted to complete the building.

A false statement is made to the effect that “the operation of Maart shall be conducted upon obtaining permission for the completion of construction of the above building,” and it received KRW 200 million from the injured party to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number:J) in the name of G around December 24, 2015, and acquired the said amount by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness K and F;

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

1. Each police statement made to K and F;

1. Each letter of certification, etc. [The defendant and his defense counsel alleged to the effect that they did not deceiving the victim, but the following circumstances that can be comprehensively acknowledged, namely, the defendant did not notify the victim of the circumstances that had not been completely settled legal disputes with the victim regarding the termination of the same trade contract with the South Mine P Co., Ltd. before entering into the same trade contract with the victim; ② The defendant was in the situation that, in order to obtain a construction permit for a building, the disputes with the lessor should be resolved and the land division and land category change should undergo procedures, etc.; however, the defendant, without notifying the victim of such circumstances, was in the situation that the victim could have been subject to a construction permit even if he paid off the closed construction cost without notifying the victim, and ③ even if the damaged party made an investment, it was uncertain whether he could properly operate the Smarket within the nearest time, as described in the facts charged.