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

1. On October 16, 2012, the Defendant is currently constructing multi-household housing in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, with the victim C at a mutually influent restaurant with two seats in the Manyang-gu, Mayang-si.

The author made a false statement to the effect that he/she would pay monthly interest of KRW 20 million and the principal would be repaid on January 6, 2013 when he/she lends KRW 20 million.

However, even if the defendant completed the above multi-household house at the time, there is no profit-making and there is no other special property or revenue, so even if he borrowed the above money from the injured party, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay.

The Defendant, at around 20:55 on the same day, was transferred from the injured party to the post office account (E) in the name of the Defendant, and at around 09:11 of the same month, to the same account as around 17:11 of the same month, KRW 20 million in total.

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

2. On March 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would repay the said victim within a rapid time, including KRW 20 million borrowed from the said victim, to the extent of KRW 1,600,000,000,” at the trade infinite coffee shop located in the said tin-dong.

However, at the time, the Defendant was unable to pay interest for KRW 20 million in previous loans, and there was no other special property or income, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the said money even if he borrowed the said money from the injured party.

Around 18:51 of the same month, the Defendant received from the injured party a remittance of KRW 600,000,000 from the post office account under the name of the above accused, and KRW 580,000,000 from the same account around 19:29 of the same month to the same account at around 19:29 of the same month.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement in court;