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

1. On March 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 3, 2013, at the time of Yasan-si, Yari-si, Inc., Ltd., a Yari-si, who was present at the Yari-si Office, to obtain a loan to the victim C with the need of money; and (b) it is necessary to have a guarantor to obtain a loan. The Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant would not be aware of the entry of the company, and would deduct the guarantee after

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any particular property, and because it is difficult for the defendant to pay interest on the above obligation due to a debt of KRW 100 million, and even if he/she received a loan with the victim as a guarantor, he/she did not have the intention or ability to terminate the status as a joint and several surety of the victim.

On March 29, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, caused the victim to obtain monetary benefits equivalent to KRW 10 million from the Sejong Savings Bank; KRW 10 million from the Hyundai Savings Bank on the same day; KRW 10 million from the loans received from the Hyundai Savings Bank on the same day; and KRW 30 million from the UNNNon Savings Bank on the same day, respectively, to obtain monetary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

2. Around August 2, 2013, the Defendant urged the Defendant to repay the loans guaranteed by the victim at the office of the Loenna District Office, and the Defendant stated to the effect that “In the event that the Defendant received a loan up to the credit limit and paid the loan to the Plaintiff, he would settle the joint and several sureties by repaying the loan up to the credit limit, and immediately transfer the additional loan in the name of the Plaintiff.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any particular property, there was a debt equivalent to KRW 100 million at the time, and was thought to use other loans as interest, living expenses, etc. by receiving money from the victim, and was aware that the name of the loan was not transferred under the name of the defendant, so there was no intention or ability to pay the money with the money received from the victim.