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

1. On July 15, 2016, the Defendant falsely stated that “The Defendant shall provide the victim E with clothes at the her husband’s shop located in the off-site D store No. C, No. 14, Dong-gu, Seoul, Seoul, stating that “The Defendant will use only three months for a loan of money, and complete payment.”

However, in fact, the husband of the defendant did not operate the clothes plant, and at the time, the defendant joined several serial lines and paid off all other debts with the remainder of the money, and he did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed the money from the damaged person.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 17.8 million won from the defendant's agricultural bank account (F) on the same day, and received 1.5 million won in cash.

2. On January 19, 2017, at the D stores listed in the above paragraph 1, the Defendant falsely stated that “If the Defendant borrowed the victim a monthly amount of KRW 10 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, from the D stores in the inner clothes plant, the Defendant would pay the amount of KRW 2.6 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which shall be paid in the number system

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, such as the above Paragraph 1, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the time limit money on behalf of the injured party.

Nevertheless, on January 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received KRW 6.6 million from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (F) around January 20, 2017; and (c) received KRW 3.1 million in cash from the victim.

3. On March 19, 2017, the Defendant loaned 4 million won to the victim, who had no money to pay the following time limit to the victim at the D stores as set forth in the above paragraph 1, around March 19, 2017.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed the money from the damaged person as described in the above paragraph 1.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.