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

On May 6, 2011, the Defendant called “Around May 16, 2011, the (i) EE office operated by the Defendant (i.e., the State) office, and (ii) G, the president of the victim (i.e., the (ii)F), to take over and operate a Chinese-style factory with the entire shares of H. However, if a loan is made on or around May 16, 201, due to the necessity of funds in connection with the acquisition of the factory, it would be repaid on or after 10 days after May 16, 201.”

However, the Defendant was unable to take over an solar plant at the time of May 201 because the Defendant did not have sufficient means to pay KRW 50 million from the victim for the reason that the Defendant did not have sufficient means to pay KRW 400 million for the takeover of an solar plant on March 18, 201 with H, in addition to paying KRW 400 million for the down payment around March 18, 201, the intermediate payment was not made on March 31, 201, and the intermediate payment and the balance were not 1.6 billion in total. In addition, even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the victim due to the lack of sufficient means to pay taxes, the Defendant did not have the ability or intent to pay them

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the victim on May 6, 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness I, J and G;

1. Statement of each part of the prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the accused (including the I statement part);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on details of passbook transactions;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order

1. Although the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant actually disbursed the money necessary for the removal of goods to be processed in the Chinese factory by borrowing the money from the victim. Unlike the initially anticipated amount, the Defendant did not intend to acquire the money by deceiving the victim, since the removal of goods in the Japanese factory was delayed and did not repay the borrowed money.

2...