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

1. Fraud;

A. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant, who committed the crime against the victim C, called “a loan to the victim C money as security by phone calls from the victim C.”

However, the highest rate of the car at the event held above is equivalent to KRW 75 million, and the mortgage was established over KRW 60,000,000,000 for the mortgagee, but at the time, the Defendant did not pay the premium for the car, which is the secured claim of the said mortgage. At the time, the Defendant did not pay the premium for the car, which is the secured claim of the said mortgage. Since the Defendant was deprived of the payment of the premium for the vehicle, which is the secured claim of the said mortgage, in the Philippines, and the economic situation was not good, such as making a 300,000 won hot between several months, and delinquency with credit card payment, it could not be released from the delayed payment. The Defendant

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) transferred KRW 28.5 million to one bank account in the name of the Defendant on the same day from the victim; and (c) transferred KRW 4.5 million to the same account under the same name as of July 1, 2017.

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

B. On August 9, 2017, the Defendant: (a) called the victim D to use the phone to use the phone to use the phone amounting to KRW 35 million; and (b) use the phone amount to use the phone amount to use the phone amounting to use the phone amounting to use the phone amounting to use the phone amounting to the victim D; and (c) use the phone amounting to return the phone amounting to the victim.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the Defendant, without any particular property or income, was able to take money equivalent to KRW 300 million between several months and delayed payment of credit card and installment payments, and was subject to the seizure of the deposit claim in his/her own name. However, there was no need for economic circumstances, such as attaching a location tracking device on a vehicle that was offered as security, and thus, he/she again borrowed money from the damaged person.