A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

On December 29, 2010, the Defendant issued to the victim C a lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million,000,000,000,000 to the victim at the law firm Do-dong, 76-1, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, stating, “The Defendant is operating two of his own house D and E clothes store without monthly rent, and the monthly rent is deferred for two years, and there is no concern that the monthly rent will be deducted from the deposit, and even if it would not be repaid if it would not be repaid, the original of the contract will be notarized so that the Defendant would be able to receive the above lease deposit directly.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have paid KRW 40 million to F. The lease contract, which the Defendant shown to the victim, was made out by F with the request of F for the purpose of the lease contract with D and E, and was falsely made. Therefore, it was impossible for the Defendant to offer the above claim for the refund of the lease deposit to the victim as security. The Defendant asserted that the claim for the payment of the construction deposit that would have to be received from F was 170 million won, and the above loan could have been repaid. However, in relation to the above construction, it is insufficient to view the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was able to pay the above loan worth KRW 150 million, since the money that the Defendant would have to pay to its subcontractor, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the existence of the above contract payment claim was insufficient, and the Defendant was actually able to pay KRW 60 million,000,000,000,000 from the loan money of this case, and KRW 32,000,00,00 prior to the above obligation of the Defendant was punished.