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

From October 2013, the Defendant conspiredd with the Victim B. The Defendant introduced the Defendant, who was aware of in the course of engaging in the work in KCC at the time, to the victim. At the time, his small father was the vice president of KCC. At that time, the Defendant was the vice president of KCC.

1. On December 19, 2013, the Defendant displayed the victim’s handphone at “D pharmacy” located in C in Jeonju-si, around December 19, 2013, and “the balance in the head of the Tong exceeds KRW 100 million.

In this case, the father may not withdraw from the party by suspending the transaction.

In order for mother to prepare expenses for the ASEAN Hospital, he/she needs money to obtain a loan, and he/she will pay money by withdrawing the balance of 100 million won at the post office passbook where his/her father suspended transactions three months after the week of the joint and several sureties.

“....”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the loan even if he/she received the loan by making the victim jointly and severally as a guarantor.

As such, on December 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained a loan of KRW 3 million from KJI on the 31st of the same month; (c) obtained a total of KRW 10 million including KRW 3 million from KJI’s loan around January 13, 2014; and (d) obtained a loan of KRW 10 million in total; and (c) obtained a new loan of KRW 10 million on the 30th of June 30, 2014; and (d) obtained a new loan of KRW 10 million and got the victim repay the principal and interest as a joint guarantor, thereby gaining profits equivalent to that amount.

2. On February 18, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at a pharmacy located in Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, the Defendant: (b) had to pay the card value to the victim; and (c) had no father receive a loan from his/her father to suspend the passbook; and (d) he/she would have paid the amount as traded in the passbook three months after the loan.

“....”

However, the defendant extended a loan to the victim under the name of the victim by fraud, such as Paragraph 1.