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

Around June 23, 2009, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would use the Defendant’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, for three months only if he/she lent KRW 50 million to the victim D to create an organization in relation to the issue of the E Residential Self-Governing Council.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular income or property because of economic difficulties, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the said money.

Around June 11, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 5,000,000 from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of F, the Defendant’s child, and KRW 35,00,000,000 from the same account around June 23, 2009, and KRW 9,797,000 from the same account around July 3, 2009, respectively, and received KRW 49,797,00 in total from three occasions.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement D in the suspect examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. A certificate of borrowing and a written waiver;

1. Application of the details of transactions by account, duplicate copies of passbooks, and Acts and subordinate statutes on deposits without passbooks;

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

1. Around the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the victim for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim even if there was no ability to repay the money at the time of the instant crime, since both the housing or joint market in which the Defendant had attached the bank account due to health insurance in arrears, and both the housing or joint market in which the Defendant owned was unclear, and there was no property or occupation to repay the money borrowed from the victim.

However, the defendant used the money borrowed from the victim as expenses to operate the E.S. Promotion Committee, and the victim also.