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

(e).

1. On July 10, 2012, the Defendant forged one copy of the withdrawal sheet in the name of C, which is a private document in relation to rights and obligations, for the purpose of uttering, stating that the Defendant was “A” and affixed a seal on the withdrawal sheet in the column of the amount in which the withdrawal sheet was kept at the place, i.e., the location of the Nam-gun, the Nam-gun, the Nam-gun, the Nam-gun, and the amount of money deposited at the place.

2. The Defendant, at the above time and place, submitted to the staff in charge of the livestock cooperatives a forged advance payment slip, which was written, to be held.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. Relevant Article 231 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime (the point of Article 231 of the Private Document), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Dismissal of a public prosecution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., initial crimes, reflective crimes, agreement, etc.);

1. On July 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) made cash withdrawal at the location of the Nam-gun, Nannam-gun; (b) made and submitted a deposit sheet in the name of C to an employee who was unable to know his/her name, as if he/she were authorized by C to withdraw 14290,000 won from the Agricultural Cooperative account of C; and (c) made and submitted the deposit sheet in the name of C.

However, there was no consent from C to withdraw the above money.

As above, the defendant deceivings the Livestock Cooperatives staff and then withdraws 14 million won in cash from the Livestock Cooperatives Account of the victim C from the Livestock Cooperatives staff, and then remitted 290,000 won to the Livestock Companies, thereby deceiving 14,290,000 won.

2. We examine the judgment. The case is a crime falling under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only upon the complaint of the victim satis who is the defendant under Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, the victim is the case.