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

1. On July 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at D Dda located in C on July 2, 2016, the victim E is a victim’s land in front of the F station with a deposit of KRW 10 million in the inside and the market price of KRW 300 million; (b) the Defendant has to pay the money borrowed from G at present; and (c) is filing a lawsuit with the building owner and the building owner due to H lease agreement; and (d) the costs of lawsuit are required; (c) if the money is lent, the Defendant will transfer the business rights of D multilateral and set up a collateral on the land.

“The meaning of “.......”

However, in fact, the Defendant had borne the amount of KRW 50 million for personal debts at the time, and had difficulty in economicly, making it difficult to pay taxes to the main points that he had been operating, and the deposit of KRW 40 million was already paid to the first police officer on November 2015 and returned KRW 8 million at the time.

In addition, the remainder of 8 million won and the return was received from the injured party, and the land was also the land that has no security value of about 4 million won in the market price.

Therefore, even if the defendant receives a loan from the injured party, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to transfer the D multilateral business rights and to establish the security on the land or to repay the borrowed money.

The Defendant had the victim pay 7 million won in lieu of the Defendant borrowed 7 million won from G on the same day on the same day, and received 700,000 won in cash from the damaged person in the name of the borrowed money, and acquired it by defrauded.

2. On July 31, 2016, the Defendant lent 4.5 million won to the victim E in terms of the attorney’s fee related to H litigation at the place indicated in paragraph (1) on July 31, 2016, and said to the same effect as described in paragraph (1).

However, since the defendant was under the same circumstances as the statement in paragraph 1, even if he received a loan from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to set up a security on the land or to repay the loan.

The defendant belongs to the above false statements.