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

Around August 2010, the Defendant purchased 25 million won from the “D daily stores” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, where the Victim Network B works for the Victim Network B, and purchased 25 million won with the money and made a business profit by the Defendant. Around August 2010, the Defendant made a false statement on the following grounds: “Around every month, the Defendant borrowed 25 million won with the money.”

However, at the time, the Defendant, who had operated around 2007, was in default and was in a state of not smooth collection due to the transactional situation, and was thought to use the said money for the repayment of personal obligations, not for the purchase of money, and thus, there was no intent or ability to repay the said money on the agreed date even if it was borrowed from the victim.

Nevertheless, as above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 5 million from the victim on August 20, 2010 and KRW 19.5 million on September 20 of the same year, and acquired KRW 24.5 million in total as the borrowed money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Complaints of E preparation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a payment note, content certification, investigation report (a complainant telephone statement);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances favorable to the defendant), [the decision of the type] type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) (the special person] of fraud [the decision of the recommended area] - The mitigated area [the decision of the recommendation area] 1-1 year [the decision of the recommendation area] / [the decision of the sentence] 1-1 year [the defendant has a history of being sentenced to the suspended sentence for the same kind of crime in the past, and the defendant fails to comply with the promise even after the victim's victim's family member's death and the deceased's death.