1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, around October 2012, at the victim D's office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul), received entertainment points from the victim in Ansan, and the deposit is KRW 150 million and the premium is KRW 450 million and KRW 50 million.

As the funds are insufficient, the guarantee of alcoholic beverage loan is different. If you sell and purchase them, it can receive more than 400 million won, and the premium is sufficient, so there is no problem to be damaged.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, in fact, there was no money that can be actually returned because the deposit was not paid monthly, and there was no premium, and there was no intention or ability of the defendant to repay liquor loans normally because there was no particular income or property.

Nevertheless, around October 5, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, had the victim take advantage of the same amount of monetary benefits by having the Defendant jointly and severally and severally surety the above loans to the above company when the Defendant obtained a liquor loan of KRW 50 million from E Co., Ltd.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the witness D and F in the fourth public trial record;

1. Recording of the witness G statements in the fifth public trial records;

1. Some statements made to the defendant in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant (including D parts of the statement);

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Promissory notes attached to a criminal investigation report (documents submitted by a complainant and statements) (Evidence Records No. 117 pages);

1. The Defendant asserts that the copy of the fairness deed was aware of the fact that he had mistakenly known the size of the rent deposit and the premium to G, who transferred entertainment centers, and that he did not deceiving the victim, such as the facts constituting a crime.

However, according to the above evidence, the Defendant prepared to take over amusement points that G operated from around December 201, and changed the business registration in the name of the Defendant on February 2012, 201, and the Defendant and G.