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

On November 5, 2012, the Defendant purchased the Da 102 (hereinafter “instant loan”) from Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant loan”), and asked to obtain a lease agreement under the name of the e, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the e, the e, who was the e, to request for the payment of the lease loan.

E entered into a lease agreement with C around November 7, 2012, and entered into a lease agreement with C during the lease period from November 19, 2012 to November 19, 2014 at a new bank opening point located in Ansan-gu, Jung-gu, Busan-si, Seoul-si, Seoul-si, for the loan of this case, “The lease agreement with C was concluded between the lessor and the lease deposit amount of KRW 78 million and the lease period of the loan of this case from November 20, 2012 to November 19, 2014.

The principal will be paid normally on November 19, 2014 by lending KRW 42 million to the lease fund and establishing a pledge for KRW 50,40,000 out of the refund bonds of the lease deposit on the face of Jeju, and the principal will be paid normally on November 19, 2014.

An application for a loan was made to the effect that it is “.”

However, in fact, E was unable to actually reside in the lending of this case, and the Defendant received a loan from the victim company under the name of E, appropriated the loan for part of the purchase price of the lending of this case as the purchase price for the additional loan, and accordingly, the requirements for the loan of this case were not satisfied. In particular, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to enable the victim company to acquire the right to preferential repayment of the credit for the refund of the lease deposit of this case since he did not have any intention or ability to obtain the right to preferential repayment of the loan of this case, since the Defendant transferred his resident registration again when he received the loan of this case.

On November 20, 2012, the Defendant and E, by deceiving the victim company, got the victim company to transfer KRW 42 million to the national bank account (F) in the name of C as a loan for lease on or around November 20, 2012, to cover the purchase price.

The defendant, in collusion with E, is the victim company.