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

The Defendant is a person in charge of overseas duties in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D” selling cosmetics on the 7th floor of the building in Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On January 27, 2015, the Defendant requires advance payment to the victim E in the above company office.

The government made a false statement that “I would purchase ten 10 bit cosmetics, etc. from the old-gu in the old-gu.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to rescue cosmetics.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, who received a total of KRW 4,981,250 from the injured party, to the account number H, 1,724,750, which is a transaction account of “G,” a company related to one’s own management, received a remittance of KRW 4,981,250 on two occasions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Investigation report (related to the submission of evidentiary documents) (the defendant and his defense counsel can supply cosmetics to victims who are not managers of D at the time when the defendant was not a stock company D at the time;

Although it is argued to the effect that the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud because of the belief that the Defendant had been aware of the financial situation of the Defendant in light of the following circumstances, namely, the content of the Defendant’s business that was lawfully adopted and investigated by the evidence, and the Defendant did not supply the cosmetic to the victim due to the fact that the Defendant did not supply the cosmetic to the victim due to the fact that

First, there is no submission of supporting material, and such circumstances have occurred.

Even if the defendant did not take such measures as refunding the above money and used it as the company's operating expenses, the defendant could not supply the above money even after receiving the payment of cosmetics from any other person than the victim prior to the above crime (see this Court Decision 2016 senior 3649 decided May 18, 2017).