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

On December 29, 2005, the Defendant stated that “C” operated by the Defendant at P.M., on December 29, 2005, the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million to the victim D, the Defendant would pay the principal within one month.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant did not have any particular property, and the husband was liable to repay the debt KRW 50 million, and as above, even before the victim borrowed money from the victim, he was paid the money to the so-called “number of days”, and even after the loan of KRW 5 million, the Defendant continued to use the “number of days” from the victim due to the shortage of the purchase fund, so even if he borrowed additional money from the victim, he did not have the ability to pay the interest or principal on the date of promise.

Therefore, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim as above and receiving five million won as the borrowed money from the victim, and, from that time to December 28, 2006, obtained the victim a total of four times from the victim in the same manner as the list of crimes in the attached Form from December 28, 2006.

around October 2, 2006, the Defendant stated that “Around October 2, 2006, the Victim H shall be repaid after five months if he/she lends 5 million won to the 4% of the interest per month.”

However, although the Defendant and the husband of the Defendant did not have any financial capacity at the time, they were unable to conduct a normal financial transaction in so-called “credit bad person” due to a large amount of debt, and they were obligated to pay KRW 100,000 or KRW 200,000 per day. As such, even if the Defendant and the husband borrowed business funds from the victim, they were to be used to pay a considerable amount of the existing debt, and thus, they were victims.