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

On February 9, 2011, the Defendant: (a) purchased a arche car on the first floor of the Goyang-gu Cporo 98 (Tpool-dong, luminous Flag) from the light agency; (b) made a request for a loan to the Defendant to the effect that “if the Defendant loans KRW 18,500,000 to its operating members, the Defendant would pay 491,730 won for 48 months each month from March 25, 2011 to February 25, 2015.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay installments even if he purchased the above car at a premium rate.

The Defendant, by deceiving the person in charge of the victimized company, received a loan of KRW 18,50,00 from the victimized company, but did not pay only KRW 1,185,113 among them, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 17,314,87 (=18,50,000-1,185,113).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A complaint;

1. Automobile register;

1. A loan contract, written agreement, and deposit statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of passbook transactions;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence) is that the Defendant sold a vehicle of 6.5 million won, immediately after the instant crime was committed, and the defrauded did not enter into the agreement with the victimized company and did not completely recover from the damage. In light of the above, it is necessary to punish the Defendant.

However, a favorable sentencing condition should be taken into account, such as the fact that the damaged company created a collateral security on the vehicle as a financial company, the fact that the defendant was not guilty of having the same kind of crime, and the defendant was led to the confession of the crime, and that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case for his livelihood because

In addition, the sentencing of the same case as that of the prosecutor's life (one year of imprisonment) is applied.