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

1. On March 2015, the defrauded of the Victim C made a false statement with the victim’s “If the Defendant borrowed the acquisition fund under good conditions, he/she would have repaid the interest to the Defendant, and he/she would have repaid the principal to the Defendant during May 2015, 2015, because he/she borrowed the acquisition fund.”

However, after taking over the PC around April 2014, the Defendant continued to operate the PC in such a state as the interest on loans, such as bonds, and the unpaid rents, compared to the proceeds from the operation of the game room. At the time of taking over the PC, the amount of the loan was 40 million won, and the above borrowed money was thought to be used as the PC operating expenses, not the PC-related funds. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed the money, it did not have any intent or ability to repay it.

Therefore, the Defendant had received KRW 7,500,000 from the victim by deceiving the victim as above, and then transferred KRW 7,50,000 to the Nong Bank account F in the name of the Defendant around March 12, 2015.

2. On March 2015, at the same place as the early police officer No. 1, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim G made a false statement to the above C that “I would pay part of the proceeds of scambling if I would like to conclude a new lease contract with respect to a computer to be used in a scambling,” and the above C made the Defendant’s statement that “I would see that I would have to have a joint and several surety under the name of scambling in the circumstance,” and delivered the Defendant’s statement to

However, even if the victim had a joint and several surety, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay monthly profits or rent for the same reason as Paragraph 1, and should pay 30 million won around May 7, 2015, the defendant was able to dispose of the leased computer at will at around that time, and only thought that he/she would pay his/her personal debt with the money, and did not have the intent or ability to pay the lease debt with the money.

Thus, the defendant is the above.