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.

1. On March 2, 2016, the Defendant, in relation to the E coffee shop located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, told the Victim FF to receive a successful bid for a gas charging suit using the claim above in the auction at the low price of the financial company's non-performing claim (NPL) against the above filling suit at the Ecer shop located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and asks the Suwon District Court for the transportation cost so that it can be viewed as a successful bid for a gas charging suit at the low price.

However, even if the defendant received the above payment from the injured party, he did not have the ability and intention to purchase the NPL.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 100,000 from the victim, to the Korean bank account (Account Number: I) with the name of the Defendant on March 2, 2016, KRW 100,000,000,000 in total, and KRW 200,000 in cash around the same time.

2. On March 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) stated that “If a gas charging lawsuit is filed, a gas charging lawsuit may be awarded to the victims by purchasing an NPL at a container; and (b) the down payment to be paid to the NPL brokerage company is KRW 14,30,000,000.”

However, even if the defendant received the above payment from the victims, he did not have the ability and intent to purchase the NPL at a low price, and used it to pay a separate fine for fraud to the defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims as above, received KRW 14,30,000 from the victims to the account as stated in the above paragraph 1 in the name of the Defendant around March 4, 2016, and received KRW 20,000 from the victim F in cash on the same day.

3. The Defendant, under the pretext of law firm director, was “NPL.” to the Victim F at a non-fluoral location not exceeding March 2016.