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

Around July 2013, the Defendant issued that “G” was operated by the victim D with “G” in the name of SP in E and Busan Shipping Daegu F, and that “G” would have been 40 to 300 million won invested at the level of KRW 2 to 300 million in the face value of the PP, in the winter-gu PP, the Defendant would have been able to obtain considerable profits, and thus, it would be able to receive and operate the said store.”

However, it was proposed that the injured party carried out the same business on the condition that he bears half the purchase price of the goods with the defendant in lieu of taking over the above store, and the defendant accepted it, and the defendant promised that "on October 2013, if there is no money at present, it can be 2-300 million won financing, and it would make an investment in half of the purchase price of the goods until the purchase of the goods on the Pison at the same time."

Accordingly, the victim invested KRW 100 million and acquired the above store, and from September 1, 2013, the victim and the defendant operated the store together.

Criminal facts

1. On October 2013, while the Defendant was operating a store with the victim as above, the Defendant concluded that “The victim was liable for principal and interest on the loan of KRW 100 million, if he/she borrowed money from the victim to receive demands from the victim due to his/her failure to pay the investment money that he/she promised to pay to the victim during the course of operating the store with the victim.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was liable for a loan amounting to approximately KRW 40 million, and the Defendant spent at least KRW 2 million per month as the borrower, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million through the victim because there was no particular import due to the circumstance in which the Defendant was prevented from returning the living expenses by using the credit card.

On October 24, 2013, the Defendant had the victim borrow KRW 100,000 from H as the obligor on October 24, 2013, and in lieu of the Defendant’s investment, it is used to pay the purchase price of clothing on October 31 of the same year.