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

On March 14, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “C” office located in Gumi-si B, which reads that “If the victim purchases equipment from E, he/she will pay equipment rent to the victim when he/she purchases equipment from E.” (which is necessary for holding the appearance of a mobile phone) that is leased with KRW 4.6 million per month from “E”.

However, at the time, the Defendant had been using the said CNC equipment leased from “F” rather than “E,” and had already accrued rent of KRW 50 million on the F side, and had not entered into a sales contract with “F.” Moreover, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to normally transfer the ownership of the said equipment to the victim, even if he received the payment from “E” and received the payment from “E” for the repayment of obligations to G and the use of the money for the Defendant Company’s operation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, wired the victim’s total sum of KRW 60 million, including KRW 10 million around May 2, 2018, KRW 10 million around May 31, 2018, KRW 10 million around July 2, 2018, and KRW 10 million around July 2, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Details of transactions in each account;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (as to attachment in writing);

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, inclusive, with respect to applicable legal provisions and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The main sentence of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to ten years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing criteria (a decision of type) shall be a fraudulent crime;