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

1. Fraud against the victim B;

A. On June 13, 2013, the Defendant expressed the victim B’s attitude that “Amond is sealed, and 5 million won is required due to the value of the goods, and if the goods are leased, it would be immediately repaid.” In addition, the Defendant took the attitude that the Defendant would have been able to immediately repay it.

However, in fact, the defendant did not do so with the Montreal, and even if he did not borrow money from the injured party due to no particular property or import, he could not pay it properly.

On June 13, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the damaged party to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in C’s name.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. On June 26, 2013, the Defendant told the victim B to the above mutual influence that “The victim is required to pay KRW 3 million with the agreed money when the violence occurred in the preceding week, and the Defendant borrowed money to the two times to repay the money.” In short, the Defendant showed a view that there is a need to reach an agreement on the violent case and that he can pay the money.

However, there was no fact that violent incidents occurred, and there was no need for living expenses, and even if there was no particular property or income, it was impossible to repay it properly.

The Defendant received 3 million won around June 26, 2013 from the injured party.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. On July 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) told the victim D to “a fright to release release from release on bail; (b) borrowed money; and (c) expressed the attitude that the Defendant was able to immediately repay the release on bail.”

However, the defendant does not receive bail and money from the injured party because there is no particular property or income.