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

Defendant,

1. On or around June 1, 2012, the facts reveal that there was no money deposited in Korea Mutual Savings Bank, and rather, there was no money used with marina loan, and even if the victim borrowed money from the victim, even though it did not have any intent or ability to repay the money in a timely manner, the victim E does not receive money from the victim “D” office in Category C where there was no money deposited in Korea Mutual Savings Bank in KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000 won to be subject to a disposition of business suspension. The latter is deceiving the victim into “the amount to be refunded to KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000 won to be paid immediately,” and then, the victim took over money from the Defendant’s deposit account on the same day as the loan, and, on June 12, 2012, the victim took it over to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, respectively.

2. On August 21, 2012, the fact, even if the victim borrowed money from the victim as above, was unaware of the intent or ability to repay it at once, and, at the above place, the victim knew that the victim “it is expected to repay the full amount of the borrowed money before and after the payment of the construction cost is made,” thereby deceiving the victim to transfer the amount of KRW 70 million from the victim to the agricultural bank account of F, which is his/her wife, to the Defendant’s wife.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. On the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2), the defendant and his defense counsel in the chief of the police statement of the E and the defendant and his defense counsel in the accusation of the defendant regarding the crime of paragraph (2), since G, the husband of the defendant, was in the construction of a multi-family housing with the maintenance factory at that time, the defendant's husband, who received the construction cost, can settle all the previous borrowed money, and at that time, the defendant argued that he had the intent to repay and the ability to repay. However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant is not guilty, and the defendant submitted the defendant.