However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On April 24, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement in the “D” restaurant operated by the Defendant in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, stating that “When the Defendant lends money to the victim E for operating expenses, the Defendant would pay KRW 800,000 per month interest and repay by October 24, 2015.”

However, the Defendant had a debt worth KRW 80 million at the time, planned to use the borrowed money from the damaged person to repay the existing debt rather than the restaurant operating expenses, and the restaurant operated by the Defendant was in the state of the operation of the enemy to the extent that the gas cost would be in arrears between several months, so there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if it was borrowed from the damaged person.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired money from the victim to the Gwangju Bank account (F) in the name of the defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the E police statement;

1. Investigation report (to be accompanied by a detailed statement of transactions to be submitted by an complainant);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a fair deed;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to ten years;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] general fraud (less than KRW 100,00) and the basic area (from June to June to June) of the sentencing criteria (the person who is subject to special sentencing).

3. The range of sentences compared to the sentences and recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months from June to June;

4. Determination of sentence: The fact that most of the damages caused by the instant crime was not recovered due to eight months of imprisonment or two years of suspended sentence is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the facts charged in this case are recognized and reflected, and the defendant is the first offender, the defendant seems to have intended to pay part of the amount of damage to the victim through the application for personal rehabilitation, and the fact that the present health condition of the defendant is not good, etc. are favorable to the defendant.