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

1. On November 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F, “The Defendant is in possession of the entire building in the name of his/her father,” among the restaurants of Jinjin-si B apartment C, which are in the name of his/her husband. Schlage is well in operation of the building, and two stores are in the state of being sold by his/her husband. There is no money to pay the price of the goods in the Party, so the Defendant is obliged to pay the price of the goods in the Party, and if it is lent KRW 200 million, he/she would sell the vacant store in return for three months later.”

However, as above, at the time of borrowing money from the victim, the Defendant was bearing the obligation of KRW 4 billion from a large number of lending institutions, and the value of the commercial building security was rarely not remaining in the status of lending money exceeding KRW 4 billion as collateral, and the Defendant was in arrears with taxes of KRW 50 million in the National Tax Service, Seoul Central District Court, and Seoul Central District Court. Furthermore, at the time, the Defendant had already been in excess of the obligation such as reporting the losses of KRW 0 million in the course of operating Smarket, and there was no intention or ability to repay the said money by selling the commercial building in the name of the Defendant after borrowing money from the victim.

Nevertheless, on November 6, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained KRW 200 million from the victim with payment of KRW 200 million to G account in the name of G (H bank I), a parent of the Defendant.

2. On February 2, 2016, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would pay money to the victim including KRW 200 million already borrowed as an empty store is not yet sold.” If the Defendant additionally borrowed KRW 130 million, then the Defendant would pay money to the Plaintiff, including KRW 200 million already borrowed as an empty store is sold.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had already been in excess of the obligation, such as the statement in Paragraph 1, even if he borrowed money from the victim.