1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

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

On February 27, 2017, the Defendant, around 14:30 on February 27, 2017, presented to the victim D’s 'E’ film equipment siren operated by Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul, a named named “F State A” to the victim as if he/she was attending the said F Co., Ltd., and returned the Kamera to March 14:30 on March 3, 2017 when he/she leased the Kamera to be used in travel.

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not attend the above F F F F F F F F F FF company from February 2, 2017, and did not have any certain income, and leased the above Kameras, etc., and had a plan to immediately leave it to the pawn Fag and to use the money for debt repayment and living expenses. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to return the Kameras to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, obtained from the injured party the sum of the market prices of approximately KRW 7,157,00,00, such as 1 Kameras (the EOS 5D Mark IV), Kameras (the EF 24-70m f/2.8m x Ⅱ), 1 carmeras (941), 1 carmeras chargers (the LC-E6EE), 2 carmeras chargers (the LP-E6N) and 1 carmeras (the 82m m glar), 7,157,000, from the injured party.

On February 24, 2017, the Defendant: “I” film lending company operated by the victim H in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon on February 24, 2017, run as if the Plaintiff worked as a business employee from the tobacco company as a business employee; and “I return the Kameras up to February 18, 2017, if the Plaintiff leased the Kameras.”

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not work from the early February 2017, and did not have a certain income, and he borrowed the Kameras, and had a plan to use the Kameras for the purpose of repayment of debts and living expenses by lending money to the Kameras immediately, so the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to return the Kameras to the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant's above-mentioned statements are false.