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

On December 20, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten (10) months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. in the original state branch of the Chuncheon District Court on December 20, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 28, 2016.

The Defendant, around March 29, 2010, lent 50 million won to the victim D a bill of promissory notes with KRW 100 million to the victim D at the Cda located in Gwangju Dong-gu, Gwangju, and repaid 50 million to B until July 18, 2010. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22348, Feb. 18, 2010>

‘A false statement' was made.

In fact, even if the Defendant borrowed the above money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the above borrowed money until July 18, 2010.

Around March 29, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a promissory note of KRW 100 million issued by F Co., Ltd. from the victim, and received discount from E at the same time at the same time, and received KRW 40 million from the victim as the borrowed money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police on D;

1. Each description of a copy of a certificate of borrowing or a copy of a promissory note;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of each Act and subordinate statutes entered in the statement of criminal records, statement of criminal records, assistance of original state, 2016 Height1046;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes;

1. The reason why the criminal defendant acquired the punishment under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is not specified as KRW 40 million, and there are many criminal records of violence in addition to the criminal defendant's judgment.

However, the defendant does not want the defendant to punish the defendant under the agreement with the victim, and the crime of this case and concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.

In addition, the sentencing conditions shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime, are considered as ordered.