However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, around March 10, 2014, borrowed money from the victim C (V, 44 years of age) to the victim E operated by the Defendant in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as security for the building lease agreement, etc. of KRW 27 million and width and borrowed money from the beneficiary using the store lease agreement and the certificate of seal impression operated by the Defendant in Jeju-do and borrowed money from the beneficiary.

D. The 27 million won will be refunded if D. has repaid the borrowed money.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant only received money from the complainant because it is necessary to pay the overdue monthly rent, etc. for the E building at the time, and had already borrowed money from the Defendant’s E store lease contract as security. Therefore, there was no intention or ability to provide the above lease contract, etc. as security and lend money to the complainant.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was transferred KRW 27 million to the Saemaul Treasury Account (F) in the name of the Defendant on the same day from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Contracts and deposits without passbooks (Evidence Nos. 3 and 4);

1. Four copies of a statement of order to submit financial transactions;

1. Statement of transactions by account;

1. A report on investigation (a statement by a witness G phone);

1. Determination as to the assertion of two copies of the written request for financial transaction information and the defendant and the defense counsel, respectively.

1. The gist of the claim is that the Defendant: (a) delivered the amount equivalent to KRW 27 million received from the injured party to H; and (b) lent KRW 15 million to the injured party through another person; (c) however, H did not lend money to the injured party because H did not borrow money; and (d) the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire money.

2. According to each of the above evidence, the Defendant used all the money received from the injured party for personal purposes and smuggling.