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

On February 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 8 million to the victim C for construction of a new factory at a nearby coffee shop in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Transport Center, “I wish to construct a new factory on the site, such as Pakistan; (b) borrowed the cost of issuing guaranteed insurance securities to perform construction; (c) would have to perform civil and b) during the construction of the said site.

“.............”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the injured party as the cost of issuing the surety insurance policy, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to contract the punishment and civil works of the above site to the injured party.

On February 25, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 8 million from the damaged party’s new bank account (Account Number E) with the Defendant’s name on February 25, 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to take money by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with respect to C and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to details of financial account transactions, loan certificates, contracts, NICE Evaluation Information Co., Ltd. (suspects credit information), replys to financial institutions;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determinations of types: Fraudulent crimes, general fraud, and one type (less than KRW 100 million);

B. There is no special sentencing factor:

(c) Scope of recommendations: Basic area, six months to one year and six months; and

3. The Defendant who made a decision of sentence does not seriously reflect the mistake by deceiving the victim and making a vindication that it is difficult to obtain money by deceiving him or her.

Although a written agreement with the victim was submitted, the victim did not receive the payment of the money at the request of the defendant, and the defendant does not comply with the subsequent promise, so he wanted to punish it.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant is old, the same as that of the defendant.