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

On January 15, 2013, the Defendant stated that “D’s precious metal sales store operated by the victim C in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, “D”, “The purchase of an apartment house by credit is changed to 4 billion won.” However, if a loan is made as security, it would give money to the victim. In addition, the Defendant may give money if her husband exists in E, with her husband’s building.”

However, in fact, the Defendant received precious metals from the victim for the purpose of appropriating other debts, and there was no specific income at the time, and there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if he received precious metals from the victim because it was not possible to make any additional loan because the right to collateral security was already established on the apartment owned by the Defendant.

Ultimately, as seen above, the Defendant, as well as the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above and being issued a gold dusting of 14k in an amount equivalent to 100,000 won on the same day from the victim, was provided with precious metal worth of 26,920,000 won from the date and time to November 29, 2013, as stated in the separate crime inundation list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

2. The police statement concerning C;

3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to entire registered matters;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime concerned;

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;