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

1. Fraud against the victim B;

A. On December 2010, the Defendant, along with C, concluded that “The Defendant would pay KRW 100 million to the Party for the lease deposit and transfer the interior and furniture to the Party if the principal is known” to the victim B’s residence located in Pyeongtaek-si Do 105 Dong 301, and “it is necessary to open the E-si Do Do 150,000 won. If the Defendant invested KRW 150,000,000,000 per month, 5,000 won will be paid every month, and the principal will be repaid after two years. In order to guarantee the principal, the store directly operated in the name of the Party.”

그러나 사실 피고인과 C가 운영하던 E는 2009. 11.경부터 이미 적자상태로 운영되어 직원들 급여도 제대로 주지 못하고 있는 형편이었고, 새로 시작하려는 사업인 떡볶이 전문점은 운영해 본 경험이 없어 수익이 발생할지 여부가 불투명하였으며, 별다른 재산이나 수입원이 없어 피해자로부터 금원을 받더라도 월 550만 원의 수익금을 보장할 수 없었고, 원금을 변제할 의사나 능력이 없었다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, by deceiving the victim as above, and then deceiving the victim from the victim about December 27, 201, KRW 10 million around January 3, 201, KRW 50 million around January 3, 201, and KRW 90 million up to January 4, 201, and acquired the total amount of KRW 150 million through the bank account under C’s name.

B. Around February 8, 2011, the Defendant, along with C, concluded that “If the Defendant lends money to the victim at a coffee shop near Pyeongtaek-dong, it would pay KRW 2 million (2 million) interest, and the principal would be repaid three months after the lapse of the three months.”

그러나 사실 피고인과 C가 운영하던 E는 2009. 11.경부터 이미 적자상태였고, 새롭게 떡볶이 전문점인 ‘F’을 운영하였으나 수익금이 얼마 되지 않아 임대료, 아르바이트생 급여를 지급하기도...