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

The defendant is the representative director of C, a corporation that is engaged in real estate development, lease, and sales agency business.

1. Around May 15, 2013, the Defendant concluded that, “A 38 years of age, the Defendant would operate the said freezing warehouse by selling the said warehouse in a freezing warehouse located in Gohap-Namcheon-do,” and concluded that, “A 20 million won need to be leased, the Defendant would be paid back the said warehouse by selling the said warehouse in a freezing.” At the last time, the Defendant concluded that “A she would be paid back the said warehouse by selling the said warehouse by selling the said warehouse.”

However, in fact, even if the victim borrows money from the victim, it was thought that it was used for the purpose of the credit card price or the interest on existing bank loans, not to purchase the arms to be used in the freezing warehouse.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim as the loan money on May 24, 2013, from the victim, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant.

2. On June 2013, the Defendant stated in Daegu that “The 1.5 billion won of the bid can be awarded to the said victim on an exclusive basis by an agreement with the lien holder with the freezing warehouse from the auction goods,” but the bid bond is required to be KRW 1.50 million. Once the deposit is decided by the court, the Defendant would normally receive a loan three to four days in general, and one another, and would receive a loan immediately after the lapse of one week,” and that “The Defendant would receive a loan within one week.”

However, even if the victim borrows money from the victim, it was thought that it was used for the purpose of paying credit card price or the interest on existing bank loans, rather than as the niversary warehouse bid bond.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 140 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant on June 5, 2013 under the name of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of each prosecutor's office against the defendant (including D's statement among the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecutor's office twice);

1. Each police officer with respect to E and D.