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

1. The crime committed on May 24, 201;

A. On May 24, 2011, the Defendant paid the victim D a contract for the interior apartment construction work to the victim D at the office at the Incheon-si apartment site office (hereinafter “Acheon-si Office”) on the following occasions: (a) if the Defendant loans KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, he/she will give and present this money to the said interior housing business operator; and (b) he/she will receive KRW 500 million from the parcelling-out agency; and (c) he/she will receive KRW 150 million from the parcelling-out agency; (d) on July 10, 2011, the Defendant paid the whole construction price to 10 households if the interior housing construction is completed first, and paid KRW 30 million from the above borrowed money to 10 households; (e) paid KRW 30 million as a down payment to the remainder of 105 households; and (e) provided the said apartment construction price as security to 100 million and KRW 370 million as to the above apartment construction price as security.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had already borne the obligation for the construction cost of KRW 3 billion on the above temporary basis, and it is difficult to procure additional construction cost due to the absence of any specific property. However, it was difficult to expect the sale deposit due to the failure to agree on whether to enter into a contract with E, which had been responsible for the sale of construction work. On April 201, 201, in return for the investment of KRW 80 million from F, it was difficult to transfer the said apartment executor's name in return for the investment of KRW 115,00 from F, and the said sales contract was concluded to transfer all the 115 households under the name of the said company as the transfer cycle, and there was no de facto ability to secure the said contract. Since the Defendant agreed to select the Si Corporation after April 201 under the agreement with F, there was no authority to select the Gu Corporation alone.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and is worth 30 million won at the face value in the name of borrowed money from the victim.