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

On November 17, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten (10) months of imprisonment for embezzlement, etc. at the Incheon District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 25th of the same month.

On May 3, 2017, the Defendant, at the office located in the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building C (State) Section D office, consulted the victim E with respect to the establishment of the above company franchise store and the raising of funds, made it possible to carry out construction work without interruption by obtaining loans of KRW 50 million or KRW 80 million to the victim through “G” connected with the F bank, and made it false to the effect that the Defendant will faithfully carry out construction work by receiving a contract for construction.

However, in fact, the loan product of the above "G" cannot allow the victim to obtain a loan of the construction fund due to absence of such funds, and there was no intention or ability to normally perform the construction work, such as not using a considerable portion of the funds paid by the victim in the construction work.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim on May 5, 2017, received money of KRW 20 million from the victim on May 5, 201, KRW 20 million on May 24, 2017, and KRW 25 million on June 5, 2017, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Investigation report (to telephone calls from persons related to F banks);

1. Inquiry into construction contracts, financial plans, e-mail, and details of transfer;

1. Previous convictions: Case search, each written judgment (the defendant and his defense counsel may allow the defendant to proceed with construction by obtaining a loan from the victim through a financial product called "G"

The defendant had no intention or ability to proceed with the work.

The argument is asserted.

According to the above evidence, the defendant is not a business operator who can directly conduct interior works, but a business operator like the victim obtains a loan through the defendant and the amount of the loan and the amount paid by the parties over the lawsuit.