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

On August 5, 2007, the Defendant made a false statement stating that “The Defendant would lend KRW 26 million to the victim C at once until August 31, 2008.” In return for lending money, the Defendant would offer DMW car as security and allow the use of the vehicle until he/she pays the lent money.”

However, in fact, since the Defendant was immediately before the date of the repayment of the business due to the excess of the obligation, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the money to the victim until August 31, 2008. Moreover, since the Defendant purchased the DMW car with the loan from Hyundai Capital and did not have the ability to repay the loan, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to allow the victim to use the said car like the promise.

On August 5, 2007, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 26 million from the victim under the pretext of the loan.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired KRW 26 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the fact that he/she borrowed money from a victim at the time and place of the statement on the market);

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the accused and E;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A copy of a certificate of borrowing or register of automobiles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (to hear statements of suspects E, to submit a suspect A real estate register, and to file reports on modern capitals);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there is no intention to commit fraud because they had been operated normally at the time of borrowing money from the victim and had the intent to repay and ability to repay the real estate.

The following circumstances acknowledged by duly admitted and examined evidence in this Court: