A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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.

Punishment of the crime

On May 9, 2013, the Defendant is expected to conduct a business leasing a dynamic transport vehicle to the victim E at the D cafeteria located in Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do around May 9, 2013.

The purpose of this study is to suggest to the effect that when investing money in a project, it would pay 4% of the monthly revenues of 10 million won per investment.

However, in fact, it is necessary for the 100 transport vehicles transport vehicles to bear approximately KRW 380,000,000 for the 100 transport vehicles, but the Defendant failed to secure one transport vehicle due to the lack of business funds. The Defendant was in an unidentified situation where the business will begin at any time due to the lack of the results of raising investment funds, and there was no intention or ability to pay profits to the victim according to the agreement, such as that there is no particular property or source of revenue to use all the investment funds for the office rent and personal living expenses.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of KRW 60 million from the victim, for investment in the same day, including KRW 50 million and KRW 10 million around the 21st of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect by some police officers against the accused (including the E-statement of the interrogation of suspect (2 times, rhein));

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that since they did not proceed as scheduled, they did not deceiving the victim as they did not pay the profits, and that they do not have the criminal intent of deceiving the defendant.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had almost no property, and it was unclear that the Defendant was receiving 300 million won investment from his wife, and the Defendant reached 4% per month for the victim.