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

From 2014 to 2014, the Defendant had been willing to borrow money, etc. for business funds, etc. from the women who have taught in the middle-gu, Daegu, the name of “C” in “C”.

1. Fraud against victim D;

A. On November 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D who made a female-friendly job offering at the place above the end of November, 2016, stating that “If a person lends a mobile phone only in the name of opening it, the cost of equipment and communication shall be borne by him/her at home and will be used and terminated only

However, in fact, the defendant did not have property under the name of the defendant, and the person who was operated by the defendant was accumulated and was demanded to refund tuition fees from students, and he thought that he sold the mobile phone opened in the name of the victim to the middle and high-ranking business operator and used it as personal living expenses, so even if he opened the mobile phone in the name of the victim, he did not have an intention or ability to pay the device cost and the communication fee.

Nevertheless, on November 25, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, opened one cell phone (F) in the name of the victim in the Seo-gu Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and did not pay the equipment cost and telecommunications fee of KRW 1,273,840, and acquired the pecuniary profit equivalent to the same amount.

B. On December 2016, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant, at the early 2016 place, made a false statement that “it is necessary to engage in a business related to internal typology. If she borrowed money with a loan borrowed by she with a bad credit holder, the interest and principal of the loan shall be repaid every month. It may be repaid with money within six months.”

However, in fact, while the Defendant was liable for a debt amounting to approximately KRW 135 million, the Defendant did not have property under the name of the Defendant, was accumulated by the enemy of the Tambling shop and received a request for refund of tuition fees from the students, and the Defendant was unable to pay monthly fees due to the lack of income, and thus, he borrowed money from the victim.