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.

On September 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at the F office of the victim E’s operation located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, the Defendant: “The Defendant registered a person with credit rating by acquiring a corporation at the expense of acquiring the corporation as the president of the branch, creating a false performance through accounting work, and obtaining a guarantee from a credit guarantee company, etc., so that the Defendant can use the funds for the operation of the company by obtaining a guarantee from the credit guarantee company.”

However, in fact, the defendant was thought to use the defendant's factory operation expenses, real estate introduction expenses, living expenses, etc., which began to lend the defendant's existing debt repayment or the victim's living G with the money received from the injured party. Since the above lending method is in itself illegal, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to lend the money to the victim by seeking the corporation as above.

The defendant was used by the defendant from the damaged person for the expenses of taking over the corporation.

G-based H Enterprise Bank Account in the name of G was transferred KRW 12 million on September 23, 2015, and KRW 27 million on October 19, 2015, respectively.

(2) The Defendant and the Victim were consistently determined as the acquisition cost of the legal entity from the investigative agency to the legal entity under the following circumstances, i.e., the sum of the amounts remitted to the Defendant by the Defendant, i.e., the sum of the amounts remitted to the Defendant, and ii) the Defendant and the Victim were consistently determined as the acquisition cost of KRW 39 million.

In the police investigation, the victim also received 39 million won as the acquisition cost of the legal entity from the defendant.

In full view of the facts stated, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant proposed 39 million won to the victim, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the amount exceeding the above amount has been proposed as corporate acquisition cost.

Therefore, it is true.