[Criminal Power] On May 27, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution for fraud, etc. in the support of the Gwangju District Court in Gwangju District Court, Gwangju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 4, 201

【Criminal Facts】

On January 2, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C that “Around January 2, 2009, the Defendant would pay the amount to the victim if he / she supplies feed in a fish farm operated by the Defendant in Jeonnam-do.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant had a total of KRW 1.5 billion in the financial institutions, such as Suwon Cooperatives and Nonghyup Cooperatives, including KRW 50,000,000,000, and KRW 300,000,000 in the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, family members, and branch members, and there was no intention or ability to pay the amount even if he has been provided with mineral feed from the victim due to the absence of a certain import.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, was issued from January 2, 2009 to February 2, 2009, a total of 38,318,000 won in the market price as shown in the annexed crime sight table, and received 3,631 boxes in total from around January 2, 2009.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Details of transactions;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (a copy of the records of the same case in the same kind of case in the A);

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Code dealing with concurrent crimes is that the amount of damage in this case does not reach 38 million won in total, and even if the damage is not recovered, the victim is not recovered. However, the equity between the first head of the crime and the concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, as stated in the judgment, shall be taken into account.