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 has operated C, which is a company manufacturing and selling liquid materials, and the victim D is a person who has worked as an employee of the above company.

On June 20, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim of the C office located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that “There is no money to purchase materials to be supplied to the Plaintiff. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million, the Defendant would give KRW 150,000 to the interest of one month and make a full payment after one month.”

However, the defendant was extremely difficult to operate the company at the time, and there was no particular asset in bad credit, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, such as borrowing approximately KRW 400 million from the defendant's wife F real estate as collateral, there was no intention or ability to repay the money later than the month.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim to the new bank account of the wife F.

2. On July 20, 2009, the Defendant, at the above C Office, stated that “The Defendant did not have any money to purchase materials due to the failure to give the victim an information about the customer at the time of introducing the customer. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million, the Defendant would give 300,000 won interest, and the principal would be repaid in the following month.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim as above, he did not have the intent or ability to repay it later.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the new bank account of the wife F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning D police statements;

1. The pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and the selection of punishment (a generally, the prosecutor charged with concurrent crimes but, in the event that the money was acquired by deception through several times for the same victim, the criminal intent is single and the method of the crime is identical, the inclusive crime of fraud is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006).