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

On January 23, 2013, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act at the Busan District Court and two years of suspension of execution for the same year.

1. 31. The above judgment was finalized.

From around 2004, the Defendant operated D Smarket in Busan Northern-gu C, and the victim E is a person who supplies goods sold in Smarket to Smarket.

From February 1, 2012 to April 25, 2012, the Defendant provided that the Defendant would provide the victims with payment of the face value by delivering coffee, drinking water, etc. to the victims of the instant Smarket, and provided seven copies of household checks worth KRW 3 million at face value.

However, in fact, since the defendant has already been liable for a large amount of money, and the provisional coefficient index equivalent to KRW 71,300,000 has to be paid from the lower end of April 2012, there was no conviction in paying the victim the provisional coefficient index, and there was no other means of payment, so there was no intention or ability to pay the price for the goods to the victim.

The Defendant received a total amount of KRW 21,454,668 on the basis of the market value of the goods, such as coffee, coffee, drinking water, and tea, throughout the above-mentioned period from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Report on transaction and investigation by period (No. 8, 9);

1. Before ruling: Application of a copy of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records and written judgments;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts (the selection of a fine, inclusive, by means of fraud);

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is that the reason for the sentencing has not yet been completed, but it appears that the reason was disadvantageous to the disadvantage of the defendant, or that the intention of defraudation had not been negligent, and the overall transaction relation between the defendant and the victim, the fact that the defendant has no same power, and the crime