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 20, 2010, the Defendant decided that the Defendant would continue to pay 2% interest per annum to the victim E at the credit business office located in the 11st floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul D Building.

However, in fact, the Defendant, who had been employed by the Defendant around September 2009, experienced a financial shortage situation due to embezzlement of KRW 95 million, and was unable to receive a considerable amount of money from credit business and loan, which was eventually terminated on April 2010. In addition, since the financial situation has deteriorated to the extent of borrowing KRW 15 million as security, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the normal interest, and in particular, the Defendant was planning to use the money borrowed from the victim for stocks, not for the credit business.

Nevertheless, the Defendant acted as if he had been actually engaged in the normal credit business, and deceiving the victim as above, and immediately transferred KRW 20 million from the victim as the borrowed money, and, on December 27, 2010, acquired KRW 25 million in total by transfer from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Statement of the police statement on E [E] (the fact that E died on December 18, 2014, and that E freely stated in the police does not dispute the defendant, and thus, its admissibility is recognized in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act];

1. A credit information inquiry statement;

1. Investigation Report (Submission of Details of Suspect's Account) (The defendant denies the criminal intent of the crime of defraudation, but according to each of the above evidences, it is sufficient to recognize the facts of the judgment in light of the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the victim as the amount of KRW 40 million, and that the money as stated in the facts charged was not already engaged in credit business itself at the time of borrowing it from the victim.).