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

Around November 2, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “E” office operated by the Defendant in Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Building 601, the victim F would lend a short-term advance and receive a lot of interest from the victim F. When lending KRW 50,000,000,000,000, the Defendant would pay monthly interest and pay the principal within six months.”

However, at the time, the defendant borrowed money from the victim to repay other debts, and there was no variable income or property, so there was no intention or ability to pay the borrowed money properly to the victim.

around November 2, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Around January 19, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would repay twice the principal to the Defendant, as well as KRW 50 million, prior to borrowing KRW 20 million from the Defendant’s office.”

However, at the time, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the borrowed money properly to the victim.

around January 19, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim and defrauds 70 million won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of witness F in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Some of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. A loan agreement;

1. Each letter;

1. A certificate of details by transaction account;

1. A credit investigation report;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel in the usage of KRW 70 million have borrowed the sum of KRW 70 million from the victim, but the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire money. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence are that the Defendant has already invested or lent money from the victim at the time of borrowing money from the victim.