A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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 January 14, 2013, the Defendant committed the crime against the victim B, at the residence of the fraternity D located in the Gyeonggi-si Co., Ltd., and at the residence of the victim B, the Defendant would faithfully pay the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment to the victim B.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any property or income at the time, while there was a debt exceeding KRW 20 million, and thus, even if the time is paid in advance, there was no intention or ability to pay the time payment.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and caused the victim to obtain financial benefits equivalent to 20 million won of the time limit provided by the defendant on the same day.

2. The Defendant committing the crime against the victim E, from G located in F in the Government-Si of Gyeonggi-do on March 13, 2013, to repay the victim E by July 10, 2013, where “5 million won is leased.”

If the money is not repaid, it was false that the restaurant to be delivered with the deposit in the restaurant."

However, in fact, the Defendant was in excess of the above debt and the above restaurant deposit did not remain due to repayment of other debts. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to repay the money.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 5 million won from the victim to the defendant's agricultural bank account on the same day.

3. Crimes against victims H;

A. On July 23, 2012, the Defendant would have to pay the extended money to the victim H with a loan to the victim H on or around July 23, 2012.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was in excess of the above obligation, and was thought to be used for the repayment of the existing obligation even if the time limit was given, and was not scheduled to withdraw the time limit money on November 2012, and thus, money from the victim.