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

around November 15, 2007, the Defendant: (a) around November 15, 2007, at the successful bid line in the vicinity of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Shindong-gu, Seoul, the Defendant was aware of it as a fraternity, and (b) the Defendant was urgently needed to pay money to the victim C who was aware of it as a fraternity.

It has the five-story building, and ASEAN has operated a golf practice range, so it is only one month to lend 10 million won.

4. To pay up to 30.

The phrase “the phrase was false.”

However, there was no property owned by the Defendant in his own name, and the building owned by the Defendant’s husband was already traded with the tenant’s deposit and bank loan, and there was no other deposit assets, and there was no other plan to use it for a multi-level investment with money from the victim, and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay it even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as such, had the victim enticed, and had the victim received 6.2 million won from the victim’s paying money on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of promissory notes or notes;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (such as the fact that the defendant is aged, that there is no criminal history, that there is no criminal history, that there is an economically difficult life for a basic living beneficiary, and that the acquired money of this case is not very significant);