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

Around August 2014, when the Defendant was unable to repay the money borrowed from the beneficiary due to the absence of a certain amount of income in a singing practice hall, etc., the Defendant offered that the Defendant would lend the money from the victim D through his her son to repay his/her debt, and would have a first monetary lending relationship with the victim, and would make the victim enter into a lending relationship with the victim. The Defendant offered that “the Defendant would allow the victim to introduce a person with a high credit so that he/she may obtain a high interest by allowing him/her to obtain a high interest by allowing him/her to obtain a high interest,” and used the money as the Defendant’s living expenses or repayment, etc., after borrowing the money, and then used the money as the Defendant’s living expenses or repayment, etc., on the basis of the processed person’s personal property, he/she received money from the damaged person through the so-called “return prohibition” method, which lends the existing borrowed money with the borrowed money borrowed from the victim.

On August 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the mutual infinite coffee shop located in the Dongyang-dong, Daejeon, Daejeon, the Defendant: (b) stated that “I would return to the said victim the principal and interest upon lending money because I would be able to make a good credit; and (c) thereafter, I would be able to return money to the victim because I would be able to pay high profits on the face of gambling, etc.; and (d) stated that “I would be able to return money to the victim because I would be able to pay high profits on the face of gambling, etc.”; (b) from August 5, 2014 to August 19, 2016, the Defendant received total amount of KRW 6,540,058,000 over 968 as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Tables 1 through 4, and remitted the principal and interest amount to the victim over 1,565 times during the same period, and wired the amount to the victim under the pretext of interest, 23636,4,254 and25 times.

However, in fact, the defendant used the funds received from the injured party for the repayment of debts, such as living expenses or the number of days borrowed from others, or intended to use them for the repayment of existing debts to the injured party.