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

1. On May 27, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, who is a partner of the company, from “D” located in the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) around May 27, 2013, stating that “The Defendant would make a payment to the victim E, who is a partner of the company, within the number of days of lending KRW 10 million with the payment of KRW 10 million.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 1,00,000 from the lending company and financial institutions at the time, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party for the purpose of preventing the so-called return of the loan.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and was transferred KRW 10 million to the new bank account (F) in the name of the defendant on the same day from the victim.

2. On July 13, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim at the above place, stating that “If the Defendant would settle the payment at the end of the month, if he/she borrowed the money from his/her father, he/she would receive money from his/her father, he/she would have paid the money.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 1,00,000 from the lending company and financial institutions at the time, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party for the purpose of preventing the so-called return of the loan.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; and (b) transferred KRW 2 million around July 13, 2013 to the new bank account (F) account under the name of the Defendant from the victim; and (c) KRW 2 million around July 15, 2013, respectively.

3. On November 18, 2013, the Defendant, on November 18, 2013, made a false statement to the victim, stating that “If the Defendant was unable to receive a refund of money from the beneficiary in return, he/she would have the beneficiary receive a return of the investment money later, he/she would have the beneficiary receive a return of the investment money immediately before he/she received a return of the investment money later.”

However, at the time, the defendant had a debt equivalent to the number of million won from a lending company and a financial institution, and so-called.