However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Around January 2012, the Defendant presented a forged lease agreement with the victim C, stating that “When he wishes to move his house by funging fungsing the house, he will have the deposit repaid by the end of the end of the next year with the name of the victim and the number of fungsing the house,” and that “The apartment lease deposit is KRW 60,000,000,000 if he leased the apartment house No. 103 708 of Suwon-si, Suwon-si.”

However, at the time, the Defendant did not have any job or income and did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the complainant due to no particular property. In fact, the terms and conditions of the above apartment were KRW 20 million, monthly, and monthly, and KRW 900,000,000, and was thought to have consumed the borrowed money from the victim due to the repayment of existing debts and living

Around April 5, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received a sum of KRW 60 million from the victim to use it as a deposit for lease in front of the D apartment guard room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of each police statement regarding C;

1. The loan certificate, apartment lease contract, the defendant's loan repayment statement, the defendant's loan repayment statement [the defendant borrowed 60 million won from the victim on April 5, 2012] The defendant denies the charge that he had the ability or intent to repay at the time. However, in full view of the above evidence duly examined and adopted by the court, the defendant is deemed to have received the above money from the victim without the intent or ability to repay, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant used the money for personal repayment or living expenses. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.] The defendant's above assertion is applicable to the law.