Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

around February 2004, the Defendant served in the Seong-gu Seoul Northern District for a middle and high school student, and around February 2006, the Defendant concurrently operated the “F” “G, while directly operating it with G, H, I, and J in the vicinity of Seoul Northern District E.

On the other hand, the Defendant, from April to May 2009, discontinued the operation of a private teaching institute in Mapo-gu Seoul around May 201, because it is difficult for the Defendant to operate a private teaching institute to the extent that it is difficult to properly pay monthly rent of a private teaching institute and monthly salary of instructors due to his/her failure to recruit students.

In addition, the Defendant operated “M” (which changed the name of “N” from around December 2010 to “N” around June 201), which is an enterprise, such as home shopping, advertising video, etc., but was operated by the Defendant, but it was a situation in which the Defendant was unable to appropriately procure the cost of producing advertising videos, and was in the operation of lending money from another person.

Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from other persons, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the money by means of the operating profit or the transfer of shares of the said private teaching institute.

1. On September 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “M office located in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OO building 9.12, the Defendant is operating the entire building as a private teaching institute in the vicinity of the Red belt with other persons. The Defendant invested a total of KRW 10 million per unit in the private teaching institute, KRW 70 million per unit, and KRW 350,000 per unit, KRW 350,000 per month. The Defendant is raising a profit of KRW 2.450,000 per unit. As there is a shortage in money to take over the shares of a partner’s private teaching institute, the Defendant borrowed money to the effect that “The principal shall be paid a monthly interest of KRW 3.5 million per share, and the principal shall be repaid three to four months after the month.”

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and is therefore subject to the same year as the borrowed money from the victim.

9. around 28.28. The name of the defendant.