When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On May 7, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 2,916,000,00,000 each month, for the sum of KRW 2,756,430,00 for each 24 months, at the office of Samsung Card Co., Ltd., an employee of the Defendant, a lower-tier agent of Samsung F&C Co., Ltd., located in Samsung F&M Co., Ltd., located in the office of Samsung F&M Co., Ltd. (the other party dong and the other party Dor Dor Dor Dor Dor Dor 2nd).

The term "highly false statements" were made.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any property other than monthly income of one million won, and the Defendant’s obligation was insufficient to pay living expenses and interest on loans that have been paid at the place of five to six places by the lending company, and it was insufficient to pay the loan amount of 20 million won, so even if he purchases the Nowon-do from the injured party on credit, he did not have the intent or ability to pay installments under the agreement

Defendant deceiving the victim as above, and was delivered to the Defendant, from May 7, 2014, KRW 2,756,3430 equivalent to the market price of Samsung Empt c and 102 around Sungnam-si around May 7, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. A copy of the agreement on installment financing that is electronic or oral;

1. Application of investigation reports (Attachment of details of repayment by subrogation) and written confirmation of payment by subrogation Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include the following: (a) details leading up to the Defendant’s instant crime; (b) details of the crime; and (c) the Defendant agreed that the Defendant intended to punish the Defendant; (c) the amount of damage incurred by the instant crime is relatively large; (d) the Defendant fully repaid the amount of damage to the victim; and (e) the Defendant was the primary offender who had no criminal history; and (e) the amount of the damage incurred by the instant crime was determined as ordered by taking account of all the conditions of sentencing