A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 17, 2010, the Defendant concluded that “Around May 17, 2010, the victim G was required to employ the Plaintiff as a staff member of the State University in the front of the EF located in the Republic of Korea-U.S., the Republic of Korea, “Any degree of interest in the establishment of the State University in Korea-U.S., and 20 million won is required.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant did not have any equity interest in the state university and received money from the injured party, he was thought to use it as personal business fund, and there was no intention or ability to employ the injured party as staff of the state university.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was transferred KRW 20 million to the account under the name of H, a company operating the Defendant, for the same day as the job placement service for the same day from the damage to the Defendant, and was continuously transferred KRW 5 million to the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant on August 3, 2010.

In this respect, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was given KRW 25 million over twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the defendant was not on the pretext of employment of the victim on the pretext of receiving money from the injured party);

However, the witness G's statement is not accepted since its credibility is recognized in light of its form of body, consistency, and the content of the day written by G.

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Certificate of deposit without passbook, and certificate of deposit confirmation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of G logbook;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution does not have the same criminal history to the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the defendant’s wife prepared a fair deed of intent to pay the victim the instant money and the victim revoked the complaint

However, the victim's damage has not been actually recovered, and the victim's damage appraisal is not good, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.