A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant was issued a total of KRW 73 million by deceiving the victim two times in total as follows.

A. On February 27, 2012, the Defendant committed the crime, which was committed on February 27, 2012, made a false statement to the effect that “D” restaurant located in Seocho-si Seoul at the Seocho-si, would be used as an urgent day, and would be repaid within three months on a loan of KRW 30 million.”

However, at the time, the Defendant was almost the Defendant’s only property, but not only did the sales of the above telecom, but also did not have any intention or ability to pay the above telecom amounting to KRW 750 million per month, including the loan of KRW 550 million to the new bank, etc. that received the above telecom as collateral and KRW 200 million borrowed with bonds. Since the Defendant had the intent to borrow the money from the injured party and to repay the money already borrowed from the J, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the money within the time limit, even if borrowing the money from the injured party.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and transferred 27 million won to a new bank account in the name of J, his wife, excluding 3 million won as the interest of the same day from the victim.

B. On August 17, 2012, the Defendant committed a crime on August 17, 2012, 2012, to borrow money from the said victim’s “G as security at a financial institution as well as from the said victim’s money at the mutual infinite chain shop located in the Seocho-si Centraldong, Seocho-si.” The Defendant would pay 20 days after the loan of KRW 50,000,000 as the expenses required therefor are required.

A false statement was made to the effect that “Before receiving a loan to repay the same amount to KRW 30 million.”

However, at the time of fact, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed the money from the damaged person on the grounds of the above A.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it.