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

The Defendant was an insurance solicitor from June 11, 2012 to October 2010 of the same year, who was working for the victim corporation D with the tenth floor of the Daegu Jung-gu C building 10 as an insurance solicitor.

1. On June 7, 2012, the Defendant, at the victim’s office, acquired money from the victim’s company with the intent to use the money to repay the debts owed to the company that had previously been engaged in as an insurance solicitor even if he/she borrowed money from the victim company, and obtained money from the victim company’s office by means of fraud, stating, “If the victim company head of the victim company, has to pay the debts to the insurance company that had previously attended, and there is no intention or ability to pay the said money, he/she would have to pay the said money to E, a director of the victim company, if he/she borrowed 5 million won, he/she would have to pay the monthly performance.”

2. Fraud of allowances for concluding insurance contracts;

A. The facts are: (a) even though the policyholder who had been newly confined by the Defendant is unable to continuously pay the insurance premium to the victim company, the Defendant was able to continuously pay the said insurance premium to the said E at the same place on June 2012; and (b) obtained 22,724,905 won as allowances following the conclusion of the insurance contract from the victim company and acquired it by deception.

B. The fact is that the policyholder who had been newly inducedd by the defendant is unable to continuously pay the insurance premium to the victim company. However, the defendant committed as if the new policyholder I would be able to continuously pay the insurance premium to the above E at the same place on July 2012, and the defendant received 28,52,800 won as an allowance following the conclusion of the insurance contract from the victim company and acquired it by deceit.

C. The fact is that the policyholder newly confined by the defendant is unable to continuously pay the insurance premium to the victim company, but the defendant is above the same place around September 2012.