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 crime of this case is a typical electronic financial fraud ( Bosishing) crime in which a person under whose name is influencies assumes money from an investigative agency or a financial institution in China by misrepresenting himself/herself with a base in China; ① a person under whose name is influencies by soliciting a person who opened a passbook or a physical card and making it possible for him/her to create a passbook and a physical card; ② a person under whose name is influencies to deliver it to the defendant using Kwikset services, etc.; ③ a criminal structure in which the defendant delivers it to another person under his/her name or influencies or sent it to the organization upon deposit of money in the Bosing passbook, such as sending it again to the other person or sending it to the organization, and as such, Defendant E and a person under whose name is influencies decided to commit the criminal act of fraud under the Washington Act, and he/she gathered to take over the passbook for the above crime.

1. Based on the foregoing mothers, the Defendant, his name-free winner, and E, the name-free winner called the victim F’s cell phone number via the phone number with which the phone number was fabricated from the f’s cell phone on June 16, 2015, and misrepresented the Defendant’s G prosecutor’s office of Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “Seoul”) to the said victim, and the Defendant committed fraud by stealing the name of the party.

The case number shall be confirmed by accessing the site of the prosecutor's office.

The phrase “it is necessary to transfer the deposit to the Financial Supervisory Service account because it is possible to do so.”

However, the fact is that the defendant, the name of the person in question, and the E are not public prosecutor, and they were not transferred from the victim to the account of the Financial Supervisory Service, and the victim was willing to acquire the above money, so there was no intention to protect the above money for the victim.

The defendant, his name, the Buddhist winner, and the E are the defendants, the name of the defendant, the Buddhist winner, and the E, under the pretext of protecting the deposits from the victims.