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

Around June 24, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “D” entertainment tavern operated by the victim C who is in Seongbuk-gu, Sung-gu, Sung-gu, Seoul, would have to repay the damage to the victim. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 31 million, he/she would have to repay the damage to D from July 1, 2015.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent to repay the money, and there was no particular property or income, so there was no intention or ability to repay the money from the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 31 million from the victim as the loan money around June 29, 2015 from the victim, to the Defendant’s parent E-agricultural bank account.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

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

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do140, Jan. 1, 2