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.

around July 201, the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to repay money from the damaged party in the coffee shop located in the office of (ju) the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “C”), and even if he borrowed money from the damaged party due to the excess of the obligation at the time, there is insufficient amount of KRW 50 million to the victim E to return the deposit.

If only 50 million won is lent, it shall be refunded immediately after receiving the deposit for lease on a deposit basis from the new revenuer.

“.........”

On August 4, 2011, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 50 million won from the victim to the national bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant under the pretext of the borrowed money from the victim and acquired it by defrauded.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of remittance receipts, A credit information Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The sentencing of Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is in mind [the scope of recommendation] general fraud (less than KRW 100 million) and the mitigation area (one month to one year) [the person with special mitigation], where punishment is not granted or considerable damage is recovered (the decision of sentence is made], and the sentence is determined as per the disposition, taking into account the agreement with the victim.