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

The Defendant was a person who is engaged in daily work in the apartment cleaning business, and even if there was no fixed income, the Defendant had a debt of 29 million won, such as bonds, and had to pay interest on the above debt every day in 60,000 won, so there was no ability to repay the debt even with others.

1. The Defendant committed the crime against the victim C, even though he/she did not have any intent or ability to complete the payment even if he/she borrowed money from another person, on December 3, 2014, the Defendant received 100,000 won from the victim, namely, a loan from the victim C, who is an employee of the E convenience store located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Seoul, by stating that “the card shall not be damaged and withdrawn in cash. It would be 100,000 won to be refunded until the new wall.” The Defendant received 10,000 won from the victim, namely, from the victim as a loan.

Then, at around 02:10 on the same day, the Defendant, at around 02:10, received 100,000 won from the victim, i.e., a loan from the taxi with a height of snow to the city of Gyeonggi-do. If the Defendant borrowed 100,000 won at the taxi in charge of tea, he/she shall be repaid up to 4,000 won.

Then, at around 04:00 on the same day, the Defendant made a false statement to the above victim that “I will pay KRW 100,000 to 60,000,000,000 to 1110,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 to 1,000,000

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim and obtained a sum of 300,000 won from the victim, and acquired it by fraud.

2. Around 00:35 on December 8, 2014, the Defendant, at H convenience stores located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, concluded that “A victim F, an employee of the place, who is an employee of the victim, did not have any money to be towed due to heavy snow failure to drive the vehicle. If the Defendant borrowed the fee to be charged with the bank, he would have to pay it at 4 times the new wall.”

However, the defendant is guilty.