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

The defendant is between the victim B and the public interest service personnel working at the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office in around 1997 and the defendant becomes aware of the same department appointment and the follow-up relationship.

1. On May 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around May 19, 2014, prepared to move food to the victim within a “D” window operated by the Defendant located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “D”); (b) lent KRW 15 million as the new store rent is urgently required; and (c) extended interest rate of 12% per annum; and (d) paid money until June 20, 2014, which is the following month.

The deposit of the Gu's "D" store may be refunded and repaid.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the Defendant was in an unreasonable situation in which the store was moved to another place in the operation of the former “D” ceremony, and the monthly income was deducted from the deposit due to the failure to pay the monthly income. However, the Defendant had no intent or ability to pay the borrowed money from the son at the time of opening the business of the former “D” ceremony, and there was no intention or ability to pay the borrowed money from the damaged person even if he/she borrowed money from the injured person.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and was transferred KRW 15 million to the Japanese bank E account under the name of the defendant on the same day from the victim.

2. On June 9, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 2014, the victim in front of the Yongsan-gu apartment apartment in the Yongsan-gu, Seoul, the Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-ro, 290, is required to pay money for business.

If a loan is made by more than 7 million won, 24% interest per annum shall be given, and money shall be paid from the second month to August 9, 2014.

The deposit of the Gu's "D" store may be refunded and repaid.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the Defendant was in an unreasonable situation in which the Defendant carried out the relocation of a store in a situation where the business is not well-being while operating the former “D” food store, and the monthly income was deducted from the deposit due to the failure to pay monthly income, and the former “D” food store.