A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and for four months, respectively.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Around November 6, 2013, the Defendant stated that “If the Defendant borrowed a restaurant operating fund because money is short of the amount to operate the restaurant, the Defendant would have to pay back with the interest of the time limit money later.”

However, in fact, the Defendant, from the beginning, intended to use the money borrowed from the victim to repay obligations to other creditors, rather than a restaurant operating fund. The Defendant had no particular property at the time, and was in bad credit standing by bearing loan obligations, etc. from various loan companies, and was liable for approximately KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s will, thus, there was no intention or ability to fully repay the money borrowed from the victim even if receiving the home care benefit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 30 million from the victim to the D Association account under the name of the Defendant (E) around November 6, 2013, and acquired it through deception five times from that time to November 27, 2015, as shown in the attached crime list 1.

The Defendants of the 2020 Man-Ma1137, the Defendant operated a restaurant with the name of “G” from September 2002 to November 11, 2019, in the name of “G” in the Gyeonggi-do Seocheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do.

1. On December 25, 2014, the Defendants stated that “The Defendants would have to install goods at a store to the victim” at the victim I’s residence located in the Dongdong-gun of Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, the Dongdong-gun, the neighboring Ha, “I will have to complete payment within one month if you lend 20 million won to the victim.”

However, in fact, the Defendants, from the beginning, intended to use the money borrowed from the victim to repay obligations to other creditors, instead of cafeteria operating funds, was so-called “defensive”. While there was no particular property at the time, the Defendants bear all kinds of lending businesses.