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

1. Fraud;

A. On October 30, 201, the Defendant stated that “Around October 30, 2011, at the home of the victim D, 5 Dong non-01, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million as it is urgently required to pay money due to mutual agreement to the victim, she will receive money from his/her students and pay it immediately.”

However, the Defendant had expressed the intent to use the above money to repay the Defendant’s personal debt, and there was no intent or ability to repay the borrowed money by bearing approximately KRW 46 million bonds at the time.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 2 million from the victim’s position, and received KRW 3 million from the same place around November 5 of the same year.

B. On November 16, 2011, the Defendant concluded that “If the Defendant newly purchased a foreign car at the same place, and then borrowed KRW 10 million as the vehicle would not bring about the vehicle without paying the vehicle on the day, the Defendant would pay the money immediately after the vehicle sold.”

However, the Defendant had the intent to borrow money from the lending company as collateral for the purchased vehicle, and did not have the intent to repay the borrowed money for the same reason as the preceding paragraph.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim’s occupation.

C. On February 16, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement at the same place, stating, “If he/she lends 2 million won as he/she requires money to be paid, he/she shall be paid the money immediately.”

However, the defendant is 1-A.

The borrower was not able and able to repay the borrowed money for the same reason.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received two million won from the victim who was in its possession. D.

On January 12, 2012, the Defendant showed an attitude that the Defendant would have been able to repay the amount to the victim at the same place, and falsely stated that “2 million won is lent.”

However, the defendant is 1-A.

There was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money for the same reason.