except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 23, 2016, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the victim and the building at KRW 100,000,000, on the following grounds: (a) on March 23, 2016, the Defendant told the victim C to the effect that “it is undergoing an auction at the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation for the building D, which would be resolved until the end of March 2016.”

However, there is a dispute over the amount of debt repaid by the defendant with the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, and a lawsuit is pending on whether the principal amount of the debt was paid 200,000,000 won during civil procedure, and the first instance court was sentenced on March 29, 2016; the second instance court was sentenced on September 23, 2016; and the third instance court was handed down on February 2, 2017; and D was awarded a successful bid on May 2, 2016, and therefore, D did not have the ability to resolve the auction within the agreed period.

As above, on March 24, 2016, the Defendant received 10,000,000 won from the victim as the down payment in the name of the deposit for lease, and received 78,665,540 won under the name of the deposit for lease on 12 occasions, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E, and part of witness F’s legal statement;

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the accused in the examination protocol of suspect;

1. Statement by the prosecution against C;

1. Investigation report (the complainant and the submission of a certificate of transfer);

1. A copy of the register, lease contract, search result of auction case, agreement, and B case search result, the auction procedure that the defendant leased to the victim can be arranged after the completion of the civil procedure that was being conducted with the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, but the defendant entered into a lease contract with the victim before the judgment of the first instance of the above civil procedure was rendered, and then the judgment of the first instance of the above civil procedure is the defendant's favor.