If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

However, the defendant did not intend to settle the price even if he was supplied with the above theater by the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained from the victim 907,500 won of the market price from the victim, thereby deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on electronic tax invoices and specifications of transactions;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to criminal facts (the determination of a fine: the amount of damage is not significant, and the amount of damage is repaid on December 18, 2014, etc.);

1. Parts of the crime of non-violation of Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The facts charged (based on November 2012, 2012, the Defendant is a person operating “F” as a new launching manufacturer. Victim G is a supplier of the new launching unit, and H is a manufacturer of the new launching manufacturer’s “I” as the head of “I” and supplied the Defendant with the new launch to a company operated by the Defendant.

On November 2012, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would make direct settlement of KRW 9,075,000,000 to the victim, who had been supplied by the victim G prior to the day on which H had been in custody by the victim G, for a new occurrence,” the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would make direct settlement of the amount of KRW 9,075,00,000 to the victim, who had been supplied by the victim, as he would have directly produced a new outbreak.”

However, the defendant had no intention to make a direct settlement of the price to the victim even after receiving the above theater from H.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, induces H to this effect.