A Imprisonment for three years and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 30,800,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine shall not be paid.

1. Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by the Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Defendant A”), “2015 high-class 188”, along with her husband B, operated the clothing company in the D market where he/she was familiar with China’s strongness from around 206.

Defendant

A from September 2008, from September 2008, China's strongness had been supplied by victims E and sold them to customers in Korea.

Defendant

A, from around March 2009 to March 2010, paid in cash to the victim and accumulated credit by receiving clothing from the injured party, and around March 19, 2010, after having the victim B, who is the husband, delivered the bill to the victim “from now on, if the bill was delivered first, the bill will be paid after selling the bill in Korea.

“ .......”

However, in fact, Defendant A had no particular property around that time, and Defendant A had to pay the principal and interest of the bonds that Defendant A incurred while paying the principal and interest of the former husband's debt by lending the bonds of high interest at KRW 20,000,00,000, and thus, Defendant A was required to pay the principal and interest of the bonds. Thus, Defendant A had no intention or ability to pay the price for supply to the victim normally even if

Nevertheless, Defendant A received the first supply from the injured party and paid only a part of the supplied goods, and applied the “161,22 won/comfort” of January 7, 201, which is the closing date of the argument in this case, to the extent that Defendant A received a letter from the injured party from March 19, 2010 to January 7, 201, and received a letter of intent from the injured party and received a letter of intent from the injured party from January 7, 2011.

(1) A forest less than Won, hereinafter the same shall apply.

considerable amount of money was not paid to the victim and used for other purposes.

As a result, Defendant A had taken advantage of property benefits equivalent to the 4,500,853 of the price of supplied goods by deceiving the victim as if the price of supplied goods was paid normally.

2...