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

1. On October 30, 2014, around October 30, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement that the Defendant would pay interest during the period of repayment of the loan to the victims C (33 tax) for the purpose of engaging in the intermediate wholesalers in fish and shellfish, such as the microde and red joints, at the point of revision of the Saemaul Bank of the Nam-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, Masan-ro, 547, Masan-ro, Masan-ro, Masan-ro, Busan Metropolitan City on October 30, 2014, the Defendant provided that the Defendant would pay the money for the interest during the period of repayment of the loan and pay the money for KRW 30,000 by working in the form.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant had approximately KRW 50 million of tax in arrears, and KRW 180 million of tax in arrears. Since 2012, the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to repay the tax even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party in return for the loss of the aquaculture business.

After all, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received the remittance of KRW 8 million from the victim to the account under the name of D on the same day.

2. From June 9, 2015 to June 10, 2015, the defrauded Defendant: (a) was urged to demand the said injured party to repay the borrowed money stated in paragraph (1) at the workplace of the Defendant’s employee in Seocho-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si; (b) the said victim received a demand from the said injured party to demand that he/she repay the borrowed money; and (c) the said victim made a false statement to the effect that he/she would pay interest during the period of the loan with the maturity of the interest, and that he/she will repay the borrowed money with the form of money.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant had approximately KRW 50 million of tax in arrears, and approximately KRW 180 million of financial obligation. Since 2012, there was also a loss in the aquaculture business, and there was no economic circumstance to the extent that the monthly income of the aquaculture was delayed, and there was a plan to use the money as repayment, living expenses, etc. with the money received from the injured party, and thus, there was no intent and ability to repay the money even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party.

Ultimately, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above, and is under the name of F on June 9, 2015 from the victim.