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

1. Around July 2012, the Defendant stated that “Around July 2012, the Defendant borrowed a loan from a bond company at a high interest rate of money to the victim D to receive a successful bid at a c office located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Office”). If the Defendant borrowed a 10 million won as a successful bid price, he/she shall use it as a successful bid price, and shall immediately repay the deposit amount of KRW 15 million with the return of KRW 15 million.”

However, in fact, the defendant's studio deposit was only 5 million won, and the deposit was not remaining after the victim borrowed the above money from the victim. In addition, even if the victim borrowed the money from the victim, it was thought that the victim would consume it in the Internet gambling, entertainment tavern, etc., but did not have any idea to use it as the successful bid price, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained money from the victim to the Defendant’s new bank account on July 27, 2012.

2. On June 2012, the Defendant stated that “Around June 2012, the Defendant would pay 150,000 won to the victim E, a work partner, at the C office located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City), for an auction. There is a lack of balance in obtaining a successful bid for a new house. It is false that the Defendant would receive a refund of KRW 15,000,000,000,000 and pay interest every month.”

However, in fact, the defendant's studio deposit was only 5 million won, and the deposit was not remaining after the victim borrowed the above money from the victim. In addition, even if the victim borrowed the money from the victim, it was thought that the victim would consume it in the Internet gambling, entertainment tavern, etc., but did not have any idea to use it as the successful bid price, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim.

On June 21, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was a new bank account in the name of the Defendant.