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

The Defendant is a person operating “C”, a motor vehicle transaction business entity, in Ulsan-gu B.

On January 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D at the above C office, stating that “If the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million for the operation of a store, he/she shall be repaid in several months.”

However, the defendant was aimed at using the above money as a repayment for debt to E, other creditors, and even if he borrowed money from the victim due to personal debt of 20 million won against F at the time, he did not have any ability or intent to repay it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 20 million won from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant as the borrowed money around that time.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements made by the police suspect interrogation protocol (second, second, and substitute) of the accused;

1. Statement made in D among the suspect interrogation records of the police against the accused (the second, the second, and the replacement);

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant asserts that he/she did not have the intention to acquire money, although borrowing money from the defendant's argument about the probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act.

In relation to this, the Defendant stated in the investigative agency that “I had made an investment in the apartment site at the time, had paid the money, and had transferred the commercial building under one’s name because I had not paid the money to the beneficiary. The victim provided that the victim was required to operate the store, but the fact was used to pay the money to the victim.” According to the records, the Defendant borrowed 20 million won from F as business funds from the victim immediately before the Defendant borrowed money from the victim on December 208.