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

On April 28, 2006, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B, in the vicinity of the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office located in the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office located in the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office in the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office, stating that "It is not necessary to pay KRW 50 million operating funds for the printing business of book holders, and it is necessary to pay the bonds as soon as the inside of the house requires urgent money, so that there are many persons who want to pay the bonds, so that it is possible to obtain a loan for operating funds, and that there is no problem that it would be no problem that making profits from the investment of approximately KRW 400 million in the complex building project of the Korea Public Prosecutor's Office in Busan Public Prosecutor's Office in Busan Public Prosecutor's Republic of Korea."

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the above bonds, and there was no intention or ability to have the victim obtain the loan.

As such, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim and making the victim guarantee; (b) obtained a loan of KRW 12 million from the bond company; and (c) did not repay the loan; and (c) on May 4, 2006, the Defendant paid the victim by subrogation; and (d) obtained the victim’s pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 17 million from the seat to the effect that “the victim would receive a loan of operating funds at a more than KRW 5 million if the operating funds are available.” (e.g., acquiring the financial benefits equivalent to KRW 17 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of the police protocol protocol law to B

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of not less than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (with respect to an agreement with the victim and non-existence of punishment, the crime was committed in around 2006, and the considerable period has elapsed thereafter, reflectivity, etc.);