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

"2018 Highest 1423"

1. On May 2017, the Defendant, at the D office of the Defendant’s management company in Gyeyang-si, Yangsan-si, received money from the victim E to the victim E by the end of the following month by receiving money from the customer who will deliver the scrap metal to the victim E.

“Falsely false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have assets under the name of the Defendant, while personal liabilities, such as bank loans, etc., were over KRW 600 million, and around October 2016, D Co., Ltd., which was operated by the Defendant, was defaulted, and recorded the deficit amounting to KRW 6-800 million in Korea in the management of the said company, and even if receiving payment from the clients, it was thought that it will be used to pay other debts. Therefore, even if receiving payment from the clients, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the processing amount.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim; (b) was equivalent to KRW 10,50,293 at the market price of the scrap metal product manufactured from the Rayer around July 31, 2017; and (c)

9. 30. 30. Rayer’s processed steel plates were issued a total of KRW 20,723,044 equivalent to the market value of KRW 10,22,751.

"2018 Highest 1831"

2. On July 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the Victim F the price in full for the following month on the face of the following month” at the office of D Co., Ltd., Ltd. operated by the Defendant, which was located in Yangsan-si.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have assets under the name of the Defendant, while his personal debt, such as bank loans, was over KRW 600 million, and around October 2016, D Co., Ltd., which was operated by the Defendant, was defaulted, and recorded and operated in one year thereafter, and thereafter, it was operated in the form of “return prevention” in which the costs incurred prior to the date on which he received orders thereafter, and thus, the victim did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount properly.

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.