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

1. On April 1, 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, “The Defendant, at the time of residence of April 1, 2011, made a false statement to the victim D, stating that “I would sell and pay for the pesticide price when I harvested spora on credit.”

However, in fact, while the defendant had a liability of KRW 100 million and a vehicle installment at the time, the importer did not have an intention or ability to complete the payment even if he was to be supplied with agrochemicals on credit from the victim because he had never been harvested at the time of Ghana.

The Defendant had been provided with agricultural chemicals equivalent to KRW 1,345,800 on a total of 17 occasions from the victim until October 14, 2011, and did not pay the amount, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to the same amount.

2. On April 20, 2012, the Defendant found the victim and concluded that “The Defendant would make a lump sum repayment of the pesticide price that would not be paid for the year when he/she harvested spores, at the time when he/she harvested spores, on credit to allow spores to go against spores.”

However, in fact, the economic situation of the defendant was the above situation, and the damage caused by the failure of the Magdo farmer in 2011 increased, so even if he was supplied with agrochemicals on credit from the victim, he did not have any intention or ability to complete the payment.

The Defendant had been provided with pesticides equivalent to KRW 1,356,300 on a total of 18 occasions from the victim until August 28, 2012, and did not pay the price, thereby acquiring pecuniary profits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not have the same criminal record against the defendant, but does not agree with the victim.