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

On February 24, 2010, the Defendant, at a coffee shop where the trade name in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is unknown, may punish the victim C with a big amount of money when operating a human resources office because he/she performs construction work on the apartment in the side of the side.

Therefore, it has changed to KRW 100,000 as it is currently in preparation for the manpower office, which is 12 months, will be used only for 12 months, have to be repaid without a mold, and the interest shall be paid in 2 months per month.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have been given specific commitments to have human resources supply at the construction site from the relatives who entered into a human resources supply contract with a construction company or employed in the construction company. However, if the Defendant did not enter into a human resources supply contract with the construction company, it was thought that he would use the money to operate a restaurant, and even if he borrowed KRW 100 million from the victims, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal monthly interest to the victims and pay the principal within one year.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received 60 million won as a check from the injured party; and (c) 40 million won as a check at the same place as a patrolman on March 2010 and issued KRW 100 million in total as a loan, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (victim C Telephone Investigation);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts of crime (the choice of imprisonment);

1. Although the amount of money obtained by the Defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is not much significant, the sentence as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the following factors: (a) the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant by agreement with the victim; (b) the Defendant is against the Defendant; (c) there is no special criminal history other than once a fine; (d) the scope of the punishment recommended on the sentencing guidelines; and (e) the number of sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age,