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

[2017 Highest 1909]

1. The point of fraud against the victim H;

A. On July 13, 2015, the Defendant is between the victim and his relative, and on July 13, 2015, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the victim’s “a siren business,” the amount of KRW 300,000 per month, and paid the principal until December 31, 2015.

The term "highly false statements" were made.

However, at that time, the Defendant was in a state of the automobile rental business, and the Defendant was paying interest, etc. in food, etc. at the time of the bad credit, and was planning to run the automobile rental business in a state of unregistered registration, and thus there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if he borrowed money from the injured party, such as not notifying the fact that the vehicle rental business has been continuously carried out, even though it was impossible to do so.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and was paid KRW 48 million to his own corporate bank account on July 13, 2015 from the victim.

B. On October 30, 2015, the Defendant attempted to kill the victim “(s) more than several sirens.”

70,000 won shall be lent to 4.2 million won per month.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed the money from the injured party for the same reason as the above paragraph (a).

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and was paid KRW 71 million to his own corporate bank account on October 30, 2015 from the victim.

2. The Defendant’s fraud against the victim I is between the victim and his relative, and on April 29, 2016, it is necessary for the victim to pay money to the victim “a siren business.”

If 50 million won is lent, 3.5 million won per month shall be paid as interest and the principal shall be repaid until November 29, 2016.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed the money from the damaged person for the same reason as the paragraph 2(a).

The defendant as above.