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

On November 1, 2010, the Defendant concluded on November 1, 2010 that “If the Defendant lent KRW 60 million to the principal of the business that had been previously employed, the Defendant would have faithfully worked in the business place of the party and repaid KRW 3 million a month,” the Defendant would have provided the victim with the E entertainment tavern operated by the victim D in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

However, the defendant continued to work at the above establishment and had no intent to repay 3 million won per month, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money from the victim because there was no particular property.

The defendant obtained 60 million won from the victim and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol of statement to F;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommending punishment] general fraud (less than KRW 100 million) where a person committed deceptive act in the mitigated area (one month to one year) (special mitigation) or where the degree of deceptive act is weak [the decision of sentencing] where the defendant is the first offender, the defendant's health is not good, and the amount of damage is partially repaid, etc., the punishment shall be determined as per the order.