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

The Defendant, in collusion with his name in collusion, purchased the Gyeonggi-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Seoul apartment 902 Dong 1203 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) under the name of the Defendant, which had the former tenant, and attempted to acquire the loans by furnishing the apartment of this case as security by deceiving only the Defendant himself/herself, as if he/she had resided without a person having a right to lease, as if he/she had resided with the former tenant.

On August 30, 2012, the name-freeist person: (a) purchased the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant and completed the registration for transfer of ownership by purchasing it in the name of the Defendant, using the identification card, etc. received from the Defendant on August 30, 2012, by inserting the house in the name of the Party and borrowing the name in order to obtain a loan.

On September 13, 2012, the name-based party ordered the Defendant to “on the condition that the lending business operator would not have any former tenant,” and accordingly, the Defendant submitted a loan contract to the victim F, who had been located in the E office where the address located in Dong-gu, Gyeonggi-do is unknown on the same day, to the victim F, who was the lending business operator, and only the Defendant was the actual resident, and the apartment that was offered as security, including the fact that there is no former tenant, to obtain a loan as security. There is no moving-in apartment. There is no moving-in household. This is a false statement to the effect that the principal is to be repaid within one year if the loan is made as security.”

However, in fact, the apartment house of this case was owned by the person who has been subject to the deposit of KRW 120 million, and the defendant did not have resided therein. The defendant purchased the apartment to obtain the loan by deceiving the name in collusion with the person who has been unaware of the name, and thus, the defendant did not have the ability to repay the loan within the time limit even if he received the loan from the victim.

The Defendant and the person who was named as the victim as above.