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

From December 1, 2010 to November 30, 2012, the Defendant continued to lease the above commercial building on condition of KRW 3.5 million on a monthly rent of KRW 50 million from the victim D, the owner of the commercial building 104 in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and provided the above commercial building on condition of KRW 3.5 million on a monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million. From December 1, 2012 to November 1, 2014, the Defendant renewed the lease contract at the expiration of the lease term and provided the victim with the loan at KRW 6.7 million on a monthly rent of KRW 3.7 million on a monthly basis, and notified the victim of the loan at the interest rate of KRW 2.3 million on a monthly rent of KRW 3.0 million on a monthly basis, and the Defendant provided the victim with the loan deposit at the rate of KRW 2.3 million on a monthly rate of KRW 3 million on a monthly basis and notified the victim of the loan deposit at the rate of KRW 2.3 million on a monthly loan.2 million.

Nevertheless, around February 2013, the Defendant terminated the above commercial building lease contract in the above C building and concluded that there is no loan secured by the deposit, and the Defendant returned the deposit without notifying the fact of the loan transaction and received the refund of the deposit, thereby making a false statement.

However, the fact is that the defendant was unable to repay the amount equivalent to KRW 20 million while engaging in continuous loan transactions with the above state (G), so part of the lease deposit, which was transferred, can be returned from the victim.