A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 13, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim’s network (C) stated that “A victim C will pay a certain amount of money if the victim lent money to 10 million won because the student’s livelihood has retired from office and the operating expenses of a private teaching institute are needed.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the debt to financial institutions and bond holders at the time, and there was no dispositive property. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party, he did not have any intent or ability to repay the debt.

The Defendant received 10 million won from the injured party in the name of the Defendant on the same day, from the time on July 13, 2015, a total of 75 million won from July 13, 2015, including the remittance of 10 million won in the name of the Defendant from the injured party to the criminal account.

2. Around November 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stated that “The Victim F is expected to pay one more of the Chinese Private Teaching Institutes” to the Victim F, “The Victim F,” and that “The Victim F, if the Defendant received the time limit amounting to 50 million won on July 2016, 2016, he/she provided a guarantee for a loan from the Loan Company, to whom the Defendant would have repaid the said money.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was thought to receive money from the lending company to repay other debts or to use them as living expenses, and there was no 70 million won amount of debt to be repaid to the financial institution and the bond company at the time, and there was no salableable property. Therefore, even if the Defendant received money from the lending company on the ground that the victim was a debt guarantor, there was no intention or ability to pay the money.

The Defendant had the victim conclude a joint and several guarantee agreement between C. C.C. and C. C. C. C.C.’s loan obligation eight million won on the same day, and did not change it, thereby acquiring the same amount of property benefits. From that time, the Defendant 4 No. 1335, Dec. 2, 2015 attached Table 4.