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

Around 14:00 on March 24, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, stating that “If the Defendant moved to D market the store operated by the Defendant, and the director cost is insufficient, he/she will complete payment without any mold within one year.”

However, even if the Defendant had bonds worth KRW 70,000,000 at the time and profits from the operation of each month were mostly used for the repayment of the obligation, and the transfer of the bonds was terminated for a long time due to the termination of the contract, and there was no intention or ability to repay the bonds even if he borrowed money from the victim.

The Defendant instituted a public prosecution only to the effect that, on the same day, the victim transferred 3.4 million won to the Industrial Bank of Korea account of the Defendant, the creditor of the Defendant, and thereby exempted the Defendant from the debt equivalent to the same amount, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits, and that the prosecutor received the goods. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits such as the extinguishment of the Defendant’s obligation to make the victim wired the money to the creditor of the Defendant. The Defendant recognized this part of the crime, and the facts charged also contain not only the Industrial Bank of Korea as the creditor, but also the crime of fraud by acquiring some pecuniary benefits, and therefore, the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense was judged to have no disadvantage and recognized

On March 25, 2017, the following day after the victim received KRW 10 million from the bank account in the name of F used by the defendant, and KRW 6.6 million from the same account on March 26, 2017, and acquired it, and had the victim transfer KRW 330,000 to the agricultural bank account in the name of G, which is the customer of the defendant, on April 1, 2017, the prosecutor did not enter Article 347 (2) of the Criminal Act in the applicable provisions of the indictment concerning this part of the charges, but the defendant did not make the customer.