Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

Around November 2014, the Defendant concluded that “A victim D, who operates the company C, shall be immediately paid for the following month if he/she would have the right to settle within the building and use C equipment.”

However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the amount, even if he used the equipment, because the management situation of the company was not good to the extent that it could not pay the wages of the employees who worked together with the Defendant at the time, and the obligation incurred for the management of the company was equivalent to KRW 200 million.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, did not use the equipment with the equipment from November 2, 2014 to January 5, 2015, and did not pay the equipment user fee of KRW 13,950,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant had no record of being punished for the same kind of crime before the instant case, and has no record of being punished heavier than the fine, and that the defendant cannot be seen to have committed the instant crime with a conclusive intent is favorable sentencing factors, and that the defendant did not have been repaid even some of the 13950,000 won of the amount of damage and did not agree with or have not been used for the victim is disadvantageous sentencing factors, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family relation, motive, means, means, circumstances after the crime