When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

【Criminal Records of Crimes】 On January 7, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment due to a crime of breach of trust, etc. in the vice branch of the Daegu District Court, and was provisionally released on November 30, 201 in the Young-gu prison on the execution of the sentence, and the parole period expired on January 7, 2012.

【Criminal facts】 On July 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the “C” office where the Defendant is working in the Gandong-gun B, Gandong-gun; (b) the victim D, who works in a manufacturing company of ED lighting, wishes to replace the ED lighting in the automobile parts company where friendly is working in the Gu.

Since friendship is responsible for all progress such as managing a general executive director and factory management, the LED replacement project is inevitable.

Along with the 10 million won each to connect them, the friendly Gu made a false statement, “The friendly Gu first changed the amount of KRW 10 million, as it is deemed that the her own money is required.”

However, in fact, there was no construction work for replacing the LoED lighting, and there was no intention or ability to connect it.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, was remitted KRW 10 million from the victim to the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A detailed statement of entry and withdrawal transactions;

1. - A money borrowed, - Contents of characters;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiries, such as criminal history, text of judgment, personal identification and acceptance status Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The punishment of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is heavy in consideration of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant fraud in spite of the fact that he/she had a history of punishment due to the crime of breach of trust, etc.

However, the crime of breach of trust in the judgment of the defendant is the fact that the defendant led to a confession of the crime, appears to be a reflective attitude, the amount of fraud is not much much, and the victim is not punished by the original agreement with the victim, and the victim is not punished by the defendant.