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

The defendant is a person who was a victim B and was a former person.

1. On June 19, 2014, the Defendant called the victim at the place of influence and called the victim at the place of influence, “Influence of early fluence, the Defendant was hospitalized at the hospital and received outpatient treatment, but the hospital cost is insufficient

When lending money, the principal and interest of each month shall be paid, and the performance money shall be paid in the workplace around December 2014.

However, at the time of the seizure of the passbook, the Defendant did not have received hospitalized treatment. At the time, the Defendant thought that the Defendant would have used the money borrowed from the victim to repay loans to financial institutions, not to hospital expenses, and that it would have been used to lend loans to financial institutions, loan companies, etc. at the time. However, it was difficult for the Defendant to pay the interest on the existing loans at the time when the passbook was seized. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay such money within the agreed period.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and he acquired 3 million won from the victim to the bank account (C) in the name of the defendant on the same day.

2. On June 20, 2014, the Defendant called the victim at the place of influence on June 20, 2014, and called the victim for “a lack of money in fact” to KRW 30 million.

If a loan of KRW 20 million is extended, the principal and interest for each month shall be paid, and the performance-based gold will be repaid at the workplace around December 2014.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant was trying to use the money borrowed from the victimized party to repay the loan to a financial institution, not a hospital fee, and at the time, it was about KRW 100 million in total with the loan to the financial institutions, loan companies, etc., but it was difficult for the Defendant to bear the interest of the existing loan when the head of the Tong was seized. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victimized party, it is within the agreed period.