However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who has sold home shopping clothes under the trade name of F, such as husband, E.

On August 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 2015, the Defendant fell from the Plaintiff’s “NS home shopping” to the Plaintiff, the representative director of the Victim (State) H, who is the Plaintiff’s (NS home shopping) G.

In that sense, because there is no original value, 20 million won of material value is to be provided to the lender and to the NS Home shopping by creating a clothing with the original body.

‘The same month from the injured party’

8. Along with the receipt of remittance of KRW 20 million to the E’s account of a national bank, the paper received 62,417,500 as of October 12, 2015, as indicated in the list of offenses in the attached Table, from the delivery of the political party in the amount of KRW 62,417,50.

However, the Defendant and E do not have any money at the time to purchase the original group, so it is difficult to deal with the situation where the original group should be purchased from other customers because the Defendant and E did not have any money.

Even if a person borrows money from the injured party or receives a discretionary processing, he/she, in collusion, did not have the intent or ability to pay the money, and instead, he/she deceivings the injured party, and acquired the total amount of KRW 82,417,500 from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. A product manufacturing instruction, a statement of transaction, a deposit transaction statement, and a delivery statement [the defendant and the defense counsel] that the victim remitted around August 8, 2015 to the defendant's side as well as the borrowed money, and that the victim did not pay the victim the above KRW 10 million out of the above KRW 20 million to the defendant's side as business funds. However, it is argued that the victim did not pay the victim the above KRW 10 million and the expenses for discretionary processing. However, this is less likely that the profit of clothes sales through the home shopping was less than the expected profit, and that the price of the goods settled by the home shopping was due to business risks that could not have been anticipated at the time of the commencement of the business, such as the defendant and E did not deceiving the victim and the victim did not have any criminal intent for deception. However, this is argued to the effect that the defendant and E did not have any criminal intent for deception.