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

The defendant is a person who operated C in Daegu Northern-gu B.

Around August 201, the Defendant provided factory facilities as collateral and borrowed approximately KRW 77 million from D to borrow the above amount of debt, and was liable for KRW 75 million other than that. The Defendant did not make any profit otherwise, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount of the bill on the date of payment even if borrowed the bill from others.

Nevertheless, on August 24, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E that “I would pay the amount of the bill on the date of payment if I lent the bill.”

The Defendant acquired pecuniary profits equivalent to the above amount by failing to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes at the due date, even though the Defendant received 13 copies of the Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 134,100,000,000 in the face value of the Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 14,000,000, as shown in the attached list of crimes, as well as by failing to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes at the due date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on rental of bills;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspended sentence is that the defendant's mistake is divided, and the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, and the bill was unable to be settled because it was not paid the price of goods by the customer. In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are taken into account.