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

Around October 31, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would return 20% interest at the rate of 20% if he/she lends money to the victim E in return for the repayment of the deposit in connection with the tendering procedure for government-funded construction works,” and that “the Defendant would return the deposit with interest at the rate of 20% within 10 days if he/she lends money to the victim E.

However, the Defendant had lent money necessary for the commencement of a successful tender to some construction business operators at the time, but there was no way to return it with high interest within 10 days, and the Defendant had a debt of 0 million won at the time, and there was no significant income, so there was no intention or ability to repay it otherwise.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received money from the victim to the F account in the name of the Defendant’s use on November 1, 2012. (2) On November 2, 2012, the Defendant received money of KRW 25 million from the victim and acquired money of KRW 30 million in total.

"2013 Highest 2108"

1. On January 20, 2012, at a place where a place is unknown, the Defendant sent a phone call to the victim G to the effect that “The Defendant borrowed money to the short-term persons who lack money in connection with the bidding for the high-speed government-funded construction works, and received fees, and if sending five million won, he/she would return the earnings within one month as aground.”

However, the defendant did not have the right to borrow money with respect to the bid for government-funded construction works at the time, so there was no way to return money from the victim within one month even if he/she received money, and there was no intention or ability to repay money to the victim, even if he/she did not pay the four premiums, and there was no apparent income in the situation where he/she was liable to pay money to the victim, such as seizure of the passbook.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and is under the name of the defendant as the borrowed money from the victim on the same day.