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

On December 16, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court, which became final and conclusive on December 26, 201, and on March 29, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Northern District Court for fraud.

4. 6. The judgment became final and conclusive.

On March 201, the Defendant was aware of in order to obtain a loan through Internet car page, and the Defendant heard from a loan broker called “C” that “C will offer 10 to 15% of the loan at the time of raising a person to obtain a loan,” and by inserting an advertisement in which a vehicle security loan is harmed on the relevant Internet car page, thereby attempting to recruit the victims including the victim D and obtain the vehicle from the victim, etc. along with the above C.

At around 13:00 on April 8, 201, the Defendant, in collusion with the above C on April 13:0, 201, would provide the victim D with a vehicle security loan of KRW 8,000,000,000 in the F cafeteria located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to offer the vehicle as security to us, and will offer an additional office with the remainder of money, and will offer an additional general loan of KRW 30 million in addition,

The term "motor vehicle security loan shall be repaid with the general loan, and the remainder of the general loan shall be repaid every month."

However, in fact, the Defendant and the above C had the victim receive a vehicle installment loan from the Hyundai Capital Capital and had the victim purchase a used vehicle, and had a plan to dispose of the vehicle side loan to the victim. A part of the used vehicle price provided as security by the victim was paid to the victim as if the vehicle was a vehicle mortgage loan, and there was no intention to provide a general loan of KRW 30 million as above. Thus, even if the victim received a vehicle as security, there was no intention or ability to provide the loan as above.

Nevertheless, the defendant et al.