A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

By lending money to the victim C, the Defendant borrowed KRW 1 million from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant on October 18, 2016, KRW 4 million around December 18, 2016, KRW 5 million around February 18, 2017, KRW 3 million around November 28, 2016, and KRW 7 million around November 29, 2016, respectively, from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant’s wife.

After that, the defendant will exceed KRW 80,000,000,000, including guarantee money and premiums, to the victim of early 2017.

The purport of the previous borrowed KRW 20 million was that the down payment is substituted by the down payment.

However, at the time, the Defendant was liable for KRW 165 million to F, and the Defendant was responsible for personal debt of KRW 150 million, and the E Haps' house was provided as collateral for transfer to F, so the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to transfer the E Haps to the victim.

The Defendant, as seen above, got off the debt of the above KRW 20 million, which was incurred by the previous victims from the damage, and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to that of the said amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A copy of the head of the Tong, investigation report (other than the case G phone investigation), investigation report (F president H phone investigation), attached documents (the defendant and his defense counsel did not have an intention to obtain deception from the defendant at the time of the instant case. However, the circumstance and contents of the victim, recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, and the situation in which the E Poypian was provided as collateral for transfer from the defendant to another company at the time of the instant case, and even if the lease deposit was not paid in full for the E Poyp Building, it was not paid.