A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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. On January 18, 2016, the Defendant plans to reduce interest costs by receiving a loan of KRW 50 million from one financial right and repaying all the loans of the said lending company to the victim E, an employee of his/her subordinate company, from the D farm located in Yong-si, which is an employee of his/her subordinate company.

When receiving a loan from a loan company, the loan company made a false statement that "to pay the principal and interest of the loan to prevent any problem in the principal and interest of the loan and to not be held liable for joint and several sureties."

However, the defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if the victim was established as a joint guarantor, such as the defendant's establishment of a joint guarantor and use the money as stock investment and cost of living.

The defendant deceiving the victim as above, caused the victim to bear the guarantee liability of KRW 5 million against the defendant's loans to the defendant's Bobch loan Co., Ltd., and did not change even after receiving a loan of KRW 5 million but did not make a change, and the defendant did not make a total of KRW 10 million and did not change even after receiving a loan of KRW 10 million. The defendant did not change even though receiving a total of KRW 2 million.

In this respect, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim.

2. Although Defendant 1 established a joint guarantor to obtain a loan from the lending company 6 places as above, he/she did not receive a loan except for 2 places expected, Defendant 2 made a false statement that “I will collect the existing loan and repay the money without fail if I would have received a loan directly in the name of NA,” at the temporary payment post office around February 1, 2016, the Defendant stated that “I would collect the loan from the victim under the name of NA, if I would have received the loan directly in the name of NA.”

However, the defendant borrowed money from the injured party.