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

The Defendant operated a restaurant with the trade name of “D” in Seocho-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul. From the end of 2012, the Defendant was in a situation where the operation right should be transferred to others because it is difficult to operate the restaurant, and was committed with intent to borrow money in advance from those who borrowed money for the purpose of operation fund.

1. Around May 2013, the Defendant stated, “Around May 2013, the victim E loaned money to the victim E with the funds for the operation of the restaurant, the expenses for the purchase of houses, etc., and thus, he/she would complete payment at that time.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have fixed income because of the difficulties in operating the restaurant, and appropriated the operating expenses and living expenses of the restaurant due to credit card loans, etc., and the Defendant was admitted to the fraternity to which the Defendant was admitted, the Defendant was able to withdraw the guidance amount of KRW 11.5 million, which was paid in addition to the deposit amount of KRW 1.5 million, and there was no other property. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the money from time to time, and most of the money borrowed from the victim was considered to have been used for personal repayment such as the existing card payment.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained 30 million won on the same day from the victim and acquired it by fraud.

2. On August 2013, the Defendant stated that “The victim F will purchase a large quantity of stores to operate a restaurant and put them in the freezing room.” The Defendant borrowed the funds to purchase, with interest added within two months.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have fixed income because it was difficult to operate the restaurant, and was appropriated for operating expenses and living expenses of the restaurant due to card loans, etc., so even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, it did not have the intent or ability to pay the interest within two months, and most of the borrowed money from the victim was considered to be used as the existing card payment, deposit money, etc.

The Defendant is the victim.