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

On September 24, 2014, the Defendant concluded that “D” offices located in Yangju-si, “D will take over and operate the D factory, and the machinery purchase funds are required. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million, the Defendant purchased machinery and operated the factory, and paid 2% per month with the principal and repaid with the funds without the mold until March 24, 2015.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the victim, he was willing to use the stock purchase price and personal debt repayment to purchase on the condition that he takes office as the representative director of D, and there was no intention or ability to pay the funds or principal by operating the factory due to the lack of assets and the lack of the ability to pay the funds and operating expenses of the factory.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 30 million from the victim around 11:16, Sept. 24, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and F;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] is that there is no basic area (6-100 million won or less) of category 1 (6-100 million won) (6-1 year or 6 months) [decision of sentence] Defendant’s use of money (decision of sentence] it is recognized that Defendant was clearly false with regard to the victim’s use of money, and that the victim did not take all measures to recover damage.

However, even according to the victim's statement, the victim provided some information about the operating status by stating that it is difficult for the defendant at the time of lending the above money to the extent, that the money was not spent for personal consumption unrelated to the company, and that the defendant repaid KRW 13 million to the victim.