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

1. On September 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) borrowed money in the name of the restaurant operating expenses; (b) the victim D is operating the restaurant at the C cafeteria located in the racing-si B as of September 12, 2016, as it is difficult to operate the restaurant because the food cost is not well.

The purpose of this paper was to make a false statement to the effect that it would be a repayment of food.

However, the Defendant, as a bad credit standing, was in arrears with taxes of about KRW 30 million at the time, was taking over a restaurant under the name of F, which is a land owner, on March 2016, but was unable to fully pay for the acquisition price. On the date of taking over, F’s account was seized, and F’s account was not paid for the food following the operation of the restaurant was not paid. On September 2016, the Defendant thought that he was able to fully consume the food that he was paid even after changing the operator of the restaurant in the name of G, a land owner, and was able to fully consume the food that he was paid after changing the operator of the restaurant, and therefore there was no intention or ability to pay the said money even if he borrowed money from the damaged person.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above and receiving KRW 3 million from the injured party as the name of the restaurant operating expenses on the same day; and (b) from around that time to December 20, 2016, the Defendant was occasionally issued KRW 128,000,000 in total as the name of the restaurant operating expenses to the victim from time to time by the said method.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. On October 2016, the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff of the borrowed funds in the name of school expenses for acquiring the right to operate the cafeteria at the cafeteria at the site E construction site and there are many people with high interest in the cafeteria.

Upon completion of the construction project, the public corporation made a false statement to the effect that it would have a cafeteria operator acquire the right to operate the cafeteria and operate the cafeteria, and thus, it would lend money under the pretext of school expenses.

However, in fact, the defendant is H, who was profin at the time.