A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

A. In order to proceed, the issue of whether the check of this case was issued is separate.

I would like to say.

However, the defendant's sentence date of a criminal case that had been pending in the trial at the time has been postponed several times (the 198-199 pages of investigation records) and the preparation of a mutual agreement was very important issue.

In fact, even though the Defendant used the instant water table as an agreed fee, the Defendant stated that “N used KRW 40 million for the appraisal of the business, and did not have any money.” In full view of the circumstances recognized earlier, the Defendant was deemed to have received the instant water table from the victimized party on the ground that it was thought that the Defendant was to use it as an agreed fee, and that it was paid the said water table from the victimized party on the ground that it was able to use it as an agreed fee.

For the above reasons, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. According to the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment [* According to the records regarding concurrent crimes, the Defendant was sentenced at the Incheon District Court on July 13, 2012 to a two-year suspension of execution of imprisonment for the purpose of fraud on July 21, 2012 (hereinafter “final judgment of first instance”). Moreover, the Defendant was sentenced to a one-year imprisonment for fraud at the Incheon District Court on September 10, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 2015 (hereinafter “second final judgment”). However, the date and time of criminal facts recognized by the final judgment of second instance cannot be deemed concurrent with the Defendant on December 12, 208 through 2009, which is the date the final judgment of first instance becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the Defendant’s judgment cannot be deemed concurrent with the Defendant on December 13, 2015 (hereinafter “final judgment”).

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following sentencing grounds are advantageous to the suspended sentence).