A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 14, 2011, the Defendant stated to the effect that, at the E coffee shop operated by the victim D located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, the Defendant would guarantee the principal of an investment advisory company, and guarantee a bank’s return on a higher rate of return than it is, if the Defendant made an investment in establishing an investment advisory company specializing in the stock investment that was worked together at the Korea Savings Bank and F, specializing in the stock investment.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have established the Investment Advisory Company called F, and even if he received money from the victim as a share investment deposit, he did not have the intention or ability to prevent the principal loss by making a share investment.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account under the pretext of stock investment, and acquired the total amount of KRW 150 million through six times until March 22, 2012, as shown in the attached crime list, as shown in the attached crime list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint, investigation report (No. 5 No. 1)

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime (the point of fraud and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [Scope of Recommendation] General Fraud (at least KRW 100,000, less than KRW 500,000). No basic area (one to four years) (one to four years), and a recommended-type comparison range: one year to four years (decision of sentence], and the amount of damage is heavy, and the amount of damage has not yet been properly recovered from damage is disadvantageous.

However, the defendant appears to have used all the money received from the victim for stock investment, and it cannot be seen that the defendant committed the crime of this case with planned intention from the beginning, such as returning 62,941,892 won generated in the course of stock investment to the victim, and it is the first offender.