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

(e).

The Defendant called “on April 10, 2013, the victim C’s cell phone phone with the victim C’s mobile phone with the victim’s mobile phone,” and called “on the part of the victim C, the victim would have repaid the amount of KRW 2 million after 2-3 days.”

However, in fact, while the defendant was in bad credit standing at the time and did not have any property, there was no intention or ability to pay the defendant's debt amounting to 30 million won by the financial institution after 2-3 days.

The defendant received 1.7 million won from the victim to the account of community credit cooperatives in the name of the defendant on the same day and acquired it by money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The portion of dismissing public prosecution under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that there are many criminal records of the same kind, the defendant appears to recognize and reflect the crime, and the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim, etc.);

1. On April 7, 2013, the Defendant, at around 16:00, committed an indecent act by coercioning the victim by forcing the victim to trade in a singing practice room located in Busan-gu, Busan-do, by using the fact that the victim C had been acting as an intermediary for an officetel located in Busan-Gun, where the victim C purchased, and demanding the victim to be able to buy and sell the officetel well, and by forcing the victim to buy and sell the officetel at the above singing room.

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment are those falling under Article 298 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012) and may be prosecuted only upon a complaint filed by the victim under Article 306 of the same Act.

However, according to the records, the victim's withdrawal of the complaint against the defendant on May 13, 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case, is recognized.