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

1. On March 22, 2014, the Defendant, in the “E cafeteria” operated by the victim D in Scam on March 2, 2014, pursuant to the “E cafeteria,” the Defendant would not receive or interfere with the construction cost after a month when he/she borrowed the Defendant the materials cost to be urgently required to obtain the construction of the waste water pipe.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was the sewage supplier of the above wastewater pipeline construction, and paid personnel expenses to the receiving company as a result of the failure to facilitate the progress of construction at the time. The Defendant was unable to repay the value-added tax amounting to KRW 41,942,00 to the same tax office that occurred around February 2, 2010 without any special property, and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay the said amount even if it was borrowed from the victimized party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 4.5 million from the victim, to the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant, i.e., delivery of KRW 4.5 million, from around that time to March 11, 2015, and obtained a total of KRW 26,447,480 through 28 times, such as the written list of crimes (1) in attached Form 28.

2. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant requires money to substitute for construction supervision meals to the victim at the places indicated in paragraph 1 of the around April 22, 2014.

If a credit card is lent, the two banks will receive the construction cost and give him/her with it.

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant borrowed a credit card from the damaged person to use for one’s own living expenses, etc., not to substitute meals to the construction supervision, and even if using the credit card from the injured person under the circumstances such as the statement in paragraph 1, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the used amount.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim and issued a new card in the name of the victim by deceiving him/her as above, and settled 250,000 won from G in Sasi F on April 22, 2014, and from around that time until January 10, 2015.