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

1. On September 9, 2013, the Defendant borrowed 30,000,000 won to the victim’s future life insurance (ju) and 9.4% interest per annum, and concluded a monetary loan loan agreement with the victim’s employee E in charge of lending that confirms the premise of the loan after one year, at a D hotel where the Defendant in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was working for the Defendant, and submitted a letter of commitment with the above content to the effect that “In the event a loan is carried out by another financial institution from the five business days before the enforcement date of the loan to the 15 business days after the enforcement date, the credit union’s loan application amount is 50,00,000 won and there is no other loan application amount than 50,000 won.”

However, in a case where the Defendant, from the beginning, thought that multiple financial institutions were to obtain duplicate loans, and the written indictment on September 10, 2013, which is the date of loan execution, stated “the date of loan” as “the date of loan execution,” but there is no possibility of causing substantial disadvantages to the Defendant’s right of defense, the Defendant’s correction as above does not violate the principle of non-defluence, even less than the fact that the court recognized a different fact without going through amendments to indictment within the same scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1651, Jun. 3

40,000,000 won from the Daegu Bank, 50,000,000 won from the Korean Bank, and 40,000,000 won from the Nonghyup Life Insurance Co., Ltd. were additionally loaned from the Korean Bank, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, stated the written indictment on September 10, 2013 from the victim as “immediately,” but the above correction is made in accordance with the legal principles as seen in the foregoing paragraph 1.

Defendant

It received 30,000,000 won from the agricultural bank account in the name of the name and acquired it by money.

2. The Defendant around September 10, 2013 is the Nonghyup Bank of Jung-gu in Seoul, Jung-gu. 92.