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

Around June 25, 2007, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “A” restaurant operated by the Defendant in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, would receive insurance loans from the victim E if he/she lends money, and that he/she would receive KRW 20 million as a security deposit because he/she would receive KRW 20 million as a security deposit, and that he/she would receive money from her husband F.”

However, in fact, the defendant was unable to receive a loan because he did not pay the insurance premium several times, the status that the deposit of the inner Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do was continuously deducted from the monthly income, and because F was not a situation where F may lend the money, there was no intention or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed the money from the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained on June 25, 2007, KRW 1,00,000, KRW 1,000,000 on July 10, 2007, KRW 11,4,000,00 on July 13, 2007, KRW 4,000 on July 13, 2007, KRW 00,000 on July 24, 2007, KRW 00,00 on KRW 14,00 on August 7, 2007, KRW 1,000,00 on KRW 1,00,00 on KRW 1,00,00,00 on KRW 1,00 on August 20, 207, KRW 200 on KRW 1,00 on KRW 1,00,00 on KRW 5,00 on August 20, 207;

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E’s statement among the police interrogation protocol of the defendant

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each investigation report and evidential materials attached thereto;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on details of trading complaint and passbook;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act led to the confession of the crime in this case and reflects his depth about the mistake, the fact that the defendant has faithfully repaid as agreed with the victim, and that the defendant has no same criminal record.