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

From June 2016 to June 2016, the Defendant was aware of the victim B with the victim.

1. On December 2, 2016, the defrauded of the borrowed money: “Around December 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) phone calls from the victim; (b) borrowed money; and (c) borrowed money from the victim to pay a fine in the case of forging private documents. In a lawsuit seeking the division of inherited property, not only cash but also cash, but also shares and government bonds, are not cashed; (d) the Defendant paid all borrowed money as the inherited property received, and (e) would also resolve the problem of width in the process of auction.”

However, at the time, the parents of the defendant were all alive, and all of the parents of the defendant could not settle the defendant's debt without any particular property, and even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim due to no special property or income, there was no intention or ability to pay the money properly.

Nevertheless, around December 2, 2016, the Defendant received 200,000 won in total from the victim via the above 43 times as indicated in the separate crime list between June 16, 2017 and the Defendant received from the victim a transfer of 200,000 won in the D Bank account (E) in the name of the Defendant’s child C, other than the Defendant’s marriage, from the victim.

2. On January 201, 2017, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (b) was able to look at the victim’s phone in a place unclaimed; and (c) the Defendant was unable to contact with the width if he was unable to charge the phone. In the inherited property, the Defendant said that the Defendant was able to look at whether the phone would be luxed upon the use of the pre-paid phone when she was able to do so; and (d) the Defendant was able to pay the user fee on the face of the cell phone by opening the

However, at the time, the defendant was living in the money borrowed from the victim and the surrounding persons without any special property or particular income, and the mobile phone fee has already been in arrears, so it is impossible to open the mobile phone in the name of the defendant.