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

Around May 2015, the Defendant concluded that, at the D office operated by the victim C, who had been aware of the business relationship in the past, the Defendant would pay the deposit and monthly lease to the victim in the name of C, who was aware of the business relationship in the past. “If the victim entered into a lease contract on the Erobert vehicle in the name of C and transferred the vehicle, the Defendant would pay the deposit and monthly lease.”

However, the defendant did not have any specific income at the time and did not have any assets, and because of the bad credit standing, there was no intention or ability to pay the lease fee even when concluding the lease contract under the name of the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) caused the victim to enter into a lease agreement with the Erodobbert vehicle; and (c) even if the said vehicle was operated by delivery, the Defendant only paid four-time lease costs out of total of KRW 1,741,530 per 44 times from July 15, 2015 to February 15, 2019; and (d) did not pay total of KRW 69,61,240 per 40 per 40 times lease costs; and (e) did not pay the remainder total of KRW 40 times lease costs, thereby obtaining financial benefits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of a detailed statement of deposit transactions and the register of automobiles statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment, and imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that agreement with the victim and punishment is not required, the fact that there is no same record, etc.);