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

Around November 30, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If he/she lends money to the victim B at a rapid demand, he/she will use it and repay it to the victim B by telephone.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had no intention or ability to complete payment, even if he/she borrowed money from a financial institution or an individual debt amounting to KRW 280 million in total, in the absence of separate assets, other than the land located in C where the Defendant borrowed bonds as collateral and has already been provided as collateral.

The Defendant received a total of KRW 19,400,000 on the same day as the loan money from the victim, and KRW 6,000,000 on December 20, 2016 from the victim to the D Association account in the name of the Defendant, respectively.

As a result, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant's partial statement;

1. B police statements, investigation reports (personal credit information of a suspect), investigation reports (Submission of evidential data of a suspect and response thereto), requests for inquiry of personal credit information (personal consent), replies following requests for investigation cooperation, and reports on personal credit information filed in relation to such requests;

1. The summary of the argument that the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion regarding the entire statement of deposit transaction is in accord with the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the victim and failed to repay the money.

However, the Defendant had been engaged in money transactions with the victim several times, and at the time of borrowing, the Defendant owned 423 square meters, G 31 square meters, and H 292 square meters prior to Macheon-si, G, and H 292 square meters, and had been engaged in clothing as a regular receipt of benefits, and was holding the claim amounting to KRW 30 million against I, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain money from the victim. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain money.

2. The judgment of this Court has been duly adopted and examined by this Court.