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

1. Fraud;

A. A. Around September 2009, the Defendant stated that, “Around September 2009, the Defendant committed the crime against the victim B, at a place where the address below the Mayang-si was unknown, the Defendant would prevent the victim from operating the internal system. The Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million prior to the lending of KRW 10 million,00,000,000 to the interest rate of KRW 60,000 per month and to pay the principal.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the time when operating a number of tickets, because the Defendant had prevented each member from returning the time limit with the money paid by each member, and even if he/she borrowed money from the victim, he/she did not have an intention or ability to receive the time limit money.

Nevertheless, around September 25, 2009, the Defendant received a total of KRW 10,40,000 from the victim to the CUnion account (D) in the name of the Defendant.

(2) On November 16, 2011, the Defendant stated that “Around November 201, 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million as the money falls short of KRW 5 million to the victim, at a place where it is impossible to find out the address below the lightyang-si’s address,” and that “Around November 16, 201, the Defendant borrowed 5 million to the victim.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the time when operating a number of tickets, because the Defendant had prevented each member from returning the time limit with the money paid by each member, and even if he/she borrowed money from the victim, he/she did not have an intention or ability to receive the time limit money.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received a total of KRW 5 million from the victim to the C Association (D) account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. Around April 12, 2010, the Defendant against the victim F made a false statement to the victim that “A victim was unable to know his/her address less than the Mayang-si,” at a place where the victim’s address cannot be known. The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “A victim was prevented from operating his/her home system. 5 million won can be refunded upon the repayment of the time limit.”

However, at the time, the defendant operated a number of times, and returned the time limit money to the number community members with the payment of each community member.