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

◀2013고단517

1. On July 27, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E at the “D” coffee shop located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that “The Defendant would permit the building located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F and build an officetel building. Around three days after the main day of the construction performance deposit, the Defendant would prepare a normal contract with a permit and a regular drawing and return KRW 50 million until the 31st day of the same month if the normal contract is not concluded.”

However, in fact, there was no purchase of the land of the above building at the house of the defendant or the defendant, and there was no right to the above building, and there was no intention or ability to construct even if the victim received a deposit for construction performance

In other words, the defendant prepared a written contract and a loan certificate at tin and received authentication from the notarial office located in the new village of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, and got the victim to bring it out, and the victim was remitted to the national bank account of the defendant as the deposit money for construction performance.

2. The Defendant’s mother did not possess assets of 13 billion won, and even if the Defendant borrowed additional money from the Victim E, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay this amount.

Nevertheless, on July 31, 2012, the Defendant did not enter into a periodical construction contract at the same coffee shop. As such, the Defendant demanded a return of KRW 50 million, which was received from the victim as a deposit, to the effect that “if his mother uses KRW 13 billion from 13 billion to 10 million in money, she will collect the money, but she will accept approval only.” The Defendant was granted a loan from the victim, i.e., e., a payment of KRW 10 million.”

Around August 6, 2012, the Defendant concluded at the same place that “Around August 6, 2012, the Defendant would return to the victim with the amount of KRW 60 million that he/she received prior to the loan, together with the amount of KRW 60 million that he/she received” from the victim.