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

1. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E by phone at the D parking lot located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on October 31, 2014, stating, “A team member need to make an accident in relation to his/her business partner, and on November 15, 2014, he/she can make a direct reimbursement with the guaranteed insurance, so he/she could lend KRW 27 million.”

However, in fact, the team members did not have a friendly relation to the accident and did not have the insurance money, and there was no intention or ability to repay the debt to the bank and the lending companies with money from many places at the time, and since the personal debt was repaid in the way of returning approximately KRW 14.4.6 million to the victim, even if the personal debt was repaid from the victim, it did not have an intention or ability to pay the debt unless the other person borrows money from the victim.

The Defendant received 27 million won from the victim to the corporate bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant in the name of the victim on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired financial benefits by deceiving the victim.

2. On November 7, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, “In the H frequency house located in G in the prime city of nuclear power around November 7, 2014, the victim “a company sets up a card with a card of KRW 50 million in the month in which the head of the team is named as operating expenses, and in order to simplify it, the fee is KRW 20%, and if the card-holder loans KRW 10 million, the fee shall be KRW 8% until December 4, 2014, the fee shall be 108 million.”

However, it was not a card that can use KRW 50 million as business expenses, but it was not a card that can use KRW 50 million as business expenses, and the defendant had a debt amounting to approximately KRW 74.6 million as stated in Paragraph 1, and the defendant was not an intention or ability to repay the debt even if he borrowed money from the victim.

The defendant is an enterprise bank in the name of the defendant for the same day from the victim.