A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 1, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for a crime of fraud at the Jeonju District Court, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of fraud, and the judgment was finalized on October 9, 2010. On January 30, 2013, the Jeonju District Court sentenced a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of occupational breach of trust on March 26, 2013, which became final and conclusive on March 26, 2013.

Around 15:00 on January 16, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D's house located in Haju-gun C, which reads that "I would know well that there is a person who knows well in the Dobongdong Hyundai Motor, I would like to put me into the passbook 30 million won which would give up employment of the children within one year."

However, even if the Defendant received the above money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to have the victims employed in modern automobiles.

The Defendant received KRW 30 million from the victim to the account in the name of the Defendant designated by the Defendant from the Nonghyup Agricultural Co., Ltd. around the 17th of the same month.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of inquiry reports and investigation reports (report attached to judgments) and statutes, including criminal records;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds that the suspended sentence is more favorable than that of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the confession and rebuttal of a crime by the defendant, the smooth agreement with the victim, and the equity in the case of a judgment simultaneously with the final judgment