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

On May 16, 2017, the Defendant applied for a credit loan of KRW 15 million to the Victim (StateB Savings Bank via the Internet, followed a loan review by the employees in charge of the victim company in his namelessly in order to answer as if the Defendant did not intend to apply for a loan to other financial companies than the victim company, and made a false statement as if the loan could be repaid normally when the completion of the loan was made.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant paid the monthly premium of KRW 20 million to the interest of KRW 20 million. On May 16, 2017, the Defendant received a loan of KRW 19,410,000 from the C Savings Bank, KRW 13,760,000 from the D Savings Bank, KRW 15,399,00 from B Mutual Savings Bank, and KRW 15,390,000 from E Card. Accordingly, even if the Defendant received a credit loan from the victim company, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the loan normally.

In such a way, the defendant deceivings the victim company, and he received 15 million won from the victim company as a credit loan, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The application of a credit transaction agreement, a certificate of credit lending explanation, a receipt, a comprehensive credit information inquiry, and the G Credit Inquiry Act and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of recommendation types according to the sentencing criteria [the scope of recommendation types] general fraud types 1 (less than 100 million won) and basic areas (not less than six months to one year and six months) (no special person);

2. Although the amount of damage determined by the sentence is not so substantial, the quality of the crime shall not be minor because no agreement has been reached with the victim for recovery from damage or damage;

The Defendant committed the instant crime because economic circumstances make it difficult for him to do so.