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.

Although the Defendant was a spouse C who reported the marriage on February 2, 2009, he was living together with the victim D from March 2, 2014, and was living together at the victim’s house located in Gangdong-gu Seoul E and 101. Around that time, there was a debt equivalent to approximately KRW 30 million, while there was no occupation or other property.

1. On March 2014, the Defendant did not think of marriage with the victim on the ground of his spouse, and even if he borrowed money from the victim without any other income, the Defendant did not make progress between us because there is no money that he did not have any intent or ability to repay the money. The Defendant did not make any effort or ability to pay the money to the victim. The Defendant would receive profits by investing in the head of the personal game where he did not have any money, but he would receive profits by receiving dividends, using the registration of the proprietor of the house operated before he operated, and would receive 30 million won loans by using the registration of the proprietor of the house in which he operated before he did not have to pay money to the public official, and the amount of 10 million won needs to be paid from the existing loan to the public official.

“A false statement to mean that it shall be the same year from the person who suffered damage;

4. From around 13.

9. By the time of July, 17, the national bank account (F) in the name of the defendant and the bank account (G) in the name of the victim used by the defendant were received totaling KRW 58,600,000 in total over 25 times and acquired it by fraud.

2. The Defendant at the victim’s home around May 16, 2014, and the facts are as above, there was no intention to marry with the victim’s spouse, and even if the Defendant borrowed the victim’s credit card on the other hand because there was no other income, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the amount. As described in paragraph 1, the Defendant’s false statement to the victim, issued the victim’s Samsung Card in the name of the victim, and then issued the victim’s Samsung Card from around

9. The Samsung Card was totaled until 16.