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

1. Around January 27, 2012, the Defendant against the victim C told the victim C at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu D restaurant to the effect that “The victim C is engaged in a new sales business at the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul E stores, and shall enter the women in China, and if customs clearance costs are insufficient, the interest shall be 10% and the interest shall be repaid immediately after 1-2 months, and if 20 million won is not repaid, the Defendant would transfer the right of operation of the Songpa-gu Seoul F frequency in the name of the wife operated by the wife.”

However, there was no particular property or income, and even if the Defendant borrowed money to the victim, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the money normally. Moreover, the FF frequency was not operated by the Defendant’s wife, and there was no authority to dispose of it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received the remittance of KRW 18,00,000 in total, including KRW 4,000,000,000, around January 27, 2012, around February 17, 2012, and KRW 5,00,000, around February 23, 2012, and KRW 18,00,000, around February 23, 2012.

2. Fraud against victim H;

A. On February 2, 2012, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant shall not bring in the goods due to lack of money to bring in women in the country,” and that “on February 4, 2012, 2012, the Defendant called that “the Defendant would make a lump sum repayment of the money borrowed from the money to the victim at an influent place” and “on February 4, 2012, if the customs clearance fee is borrowed from the money to the money borrowed from the money to the money borrowed from the money to the last day.”

However, in fact, the defendant had no particular property or income, and had already been liable to the above C, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, such as the mobile phone fee of 1.5 million won is overdue, he did not have the ability to pay it normally.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above, and around February 2, 2012, into G’s account.