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

On July 10, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement as if he could normally repay money to the victim at the victim D’s house located in the Gyeonggi-gu Seoul apartment 103 dong 602, the Defendant borrowed money to the effect that “I wish to live in the company and to recover KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

However, the Defendant had the victim make an investment in a multi-level company E, but the said company did not normally operate and did not yield any profit. The Defendant merely intended to repay the loan borrowed from the victim to another person. The Defendant did not have any particular income or property at the time, and there was no ability to pay the loan normally even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant received KRW 44.5 million from the victim on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the fourth trial records;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Loan certificates, certificate of deposit, certified copy of real estate register, inquiry about details of loans, and application of each statute on financial transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act has reached KRW 44,50,000,000, and the damage has not been recovered, the defendant is deemed to have been subject to strict punishment. However, according to the promise at the time of borrowing, the defendant paid the amount of KRW 25,00,000 as interest to the victim's loan amounting to KRW 24,6,000 on behalf of the victim, and paid the victim KRW 50,000 after the closing of the argument in this case.