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 December 21, 2010, the Defendant needs to have a guarantor to obtain a loan from the victim at a factory where the Defendant and the victim C work in Sinsi-si B, Sinsi-si, 2010.

A guarantee shall be paid in cash six months after the payment of the guarantee.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the father of the defendant did not undergo an operation, and the defendant did not have the intention or ability to repay the loan even if he received the loan because he was absent from the Internet gambling at the time, and the defendant was liable for approximately KRW 40 million.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim and taking the victim into account as a joint guarantor, borrowed 5 million won from the Dadra Co., Ltd. around December 21, 2010, and had the victim repay the above loan.

2. On February 28, 2011, the Defendant: (a) taken the victim into consideration by the aforementioned method at the above place; (b) taken that the victim was jointly and severally surety; (c) took out a loan of KRW 3.5 million from a loan company of Metetra Art Korea around February 28, 201; and (d) had the victim repay the loan.

3. Around March 18, 2011, the Defendant: (a) taken the victim into consideration by the foregoing method at the above place; (b) taken that the victim was jointly and severally surety; and (c) took out a loan of KRW 3 million from the part of the Nompis press area around March 18, 201; and (d) had the victim repay the said loan.

4. On April 14, 201, the Defendant would receive a loan from the victim under the above four names and would be used to repay the existing loan to the victim at the same place.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had no intention or ability to repay the existing loan or repay the present loan even if he/she received the loan in the name of the victim because the Defendant had been in excess of his/her obligation as above at the time.

As such, the Defendant deceivings the victim as such, and the victim is around April 14, 201.