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

On January 13, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D by phone calls from the former, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) to the effect that “15,00,000 won is paid with 25% interest per annum on the face of the principal by borrowing KRW 15,00,00, and will repay the borrowed amount by April 10, 2013.”

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the amount even if he borrowed the amount from the victim because he had paid the amount of 40 million won at the time, and there was no certain income.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 15,000,000 won from the victim under the name of Defendant wife E as the borrowed money on the same day.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. The loan certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (on-site verification of the F Company and the G search of the representative of the F Company), an investigation report (Attachment to a copy of a motor vehicle registration

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

1. Judgment on the defendant's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. There was no intention to acquire the victim by deceit, such as providing sufficient security to the victim of the gist of the claim;

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, ① the Defendant was unable to repay the money from the victim to the present day due to lack of sufficient means to repay the money after borrowing it from the victim; ② the vessel or motor vehicle that the Defendant intended to offer as security was not actually offered as security; ③ the Defendant was unable to communicate with the victim after failing to repay the money within the agreed time limit and making it difficult to provide security due to the security such as the creation of a mortgage due to the name of each property; and ③ the Defendant’s fraud is recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that the victim does not want to punish the defendant.