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

Around March 18, 2012, the Defendant called the victim C’s wife D and elementary school line D, and made a false statement to the said D, stating, “The Defendant would provide KRW 16 million to the F, which was traded in order to open the door in E, with the support of KRW 10 million after opening the door. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million, then the Defendant would pay the interest of KRW 16 million more than the month.”

However, the Defendant had previously borrowed KRW 10 million from the F, which was traded in the course of operating a mutual sign of “G”, and the Defendant was unable to pay the above subsidies due to the failure to pay the above subsidies, and it was difficult to expect the profits from the operation of the door, even if he borrowed money from the victim, because the Defendant was unable to receive normal payment from F due to the obligation for the payment of the smuggling. Therefore, even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have any intention or ability to pay such money.

On March 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; and (b) obtained from the victim the sum of KRW 15 million at the coffee shop with the trade name H on March 19, 2012; and (c) obtained 15 million checks from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to loan certificates;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act or more;