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

On October 14, 2019, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would have repaid the interest and interest together with the money to the victim C at the B coffee shop near the Daegu Suhyup River basin.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money, and the amount issued to the victim as a collateral was a fake money.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 115,640,00 from September 5, 2019 to November 9, 2019, and acquired KRW 115,640,00 in total on six occasions from around September 5, 2019 to receive KRW 17,140,00 from the victim’s name as the borrowed money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in C in the police interrogation protocol concerning the defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Details of damage, a gold appraisal report, etc.;

1. Gold photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reasoning for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is not to be somewhat weak, and the punishment is to be determined as ordered in full view of various sentencing conditions that are shown in the trial process of this case, such as the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances, means and result of the crime, etc., and the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, and that the amount of the fraud is against the defendant.