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

The Defendant was in conflict with the victim B on the premise of marriage. On the other hand, on April 2017, the Defendant did not have any particular occupation or import since the Defendant was discharged from C who was in office on the premise of marriage.

1. Fraud;

A. On April 7, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around April 7, 2017, the Defendant borrowed 20,000 won as money needed for a business,” to the victim’s residence in the Gu-U.S. D building and the victim’s residence in the victim’s subparagraph (E).

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any consultation with other persons on the business, and did not have a specific business plan, and did not have any specific income from the occupation at the time, and did not have any income from the occupation at the time, and there was no intention to use the full amount of personal debt or living expenses so that he did not have any ability or intent to repay

Ultimately, around April 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) transferred KRW 20 million from the victim’s bank account in the name of the victim; and (c) wired KRW 16 million from April 7, 2017 to the Defendant’s H account in the name of his/her father that he/she manages three times during the period from June 2, 2017 to June 2, 2017; and (c) acquired the said KRW 16 million by deception.

B. Around September 5, 2017, around September 5, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If the Defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,000,000 to a third party, he/she would receive a close monthly wage” from the victim B with the difficulty of making it difficult for the Defendant to pay a monthly wage. The C president borrowed KRW 10,000,000,000,000.

However, in fact, the Defendant had already retired from office on April 2017, as well as the Defendant had not been able to receive a monthly wage. There was no particular income due to the absence of occupation at the time. In addition, the Defendant did not have any ability or intent to repay the obligation because he had been able to use the full amount of personal debt or cost of living with the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant is above.