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

The Defendant, like C, was a person who was engaged in the business of “E” in Gangnam-gu Seoul, as well as C, was aware of C’s female-friendly victim F, and subsequently, the victim F invested KRW 50 million in C as the expenses for establishing a private teaching institute. The Defendant proposed that “A, who wishes to divide the above private teaching institute, newly establishes and operates a private teaching institute in G with the amount of KRW 50 million in terms of the expenses for establishing the private teaching institute, and the Defendant established and operates the private teaching institute in G with the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, won, shall be paid to the victim.”

Accordingly, in order to move a private teaching institute to the H station located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on condition of KRW 20,000,000,000 as the lease deposit for the same lease deposit, and requested the lessor to pay the lease deposit first before the date of occupancy while the lessor was performing the interior construction, and on November 29, 2014, the Defendant requested the victim to pay the lease deposit first from the office of the fourth floor of the Seoul Metropolitan Government I building by telephone.

section 3.

If a person lends money to another person, he/she will receive and change the deposit money for the lease of D Driving Schools.

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

However, at the time, the Defendant had been in existence of KRW 4 million out of the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, and the Defendant was unable to fully repay KRW 30 million, which was personally borrowed to operate the said D D D D D D D D D D Institute. Since the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s personal living expenses, etc., and did not have any particular property, there was no intention or ability to repay the amount even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as such and let the victim do so under the name of lease deposit, and up to 10 million won to the lessorJ around November 29, 2014.