On December 12, 2010, the Defendant called “D” operated by the Victim C in Jeju-si, the Defendant: (a) requested the victim to “E” to supply 60 parts to the “E” company that directly sells the vehicle travel restriction device after checking the deposit amount of KRW 15.5 million on February 14, 2011.

However, even if the Defendant had been in bad credit position at the time and was paid KRW 5 million to F, and was paid money from the victim as the price for the restriction device for the vehicle circuit, the Defendant did not request the payment of parts to the victim and was thought to be used for an individual purpose, such as personal debt, living expenses, etc., and thus did not have the intent and ability to deliver the parts to the victim.

Around December 12, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 1 million as the down payment from the victim, and obtained KRW 14.5 million in total as the remainder on February 14, 201, and acquired KRW 15.5 million as the remainder on February 14, 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Entry of witnesses C and G in the third protocol of trial;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. A contract for business agency;

1. A copy of a bankbook;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the content certificate;

1. Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of imprisonment with labor is based on the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant’s assertion of the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant, at the time of receiving money from the victim, has sufficient means to possess and have the means to deliver it to the victim. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was unable to deliver the said devices

The defendant's economic condition at the time of the contract with the victim recognized by the evidence of the ruling, and the defendant's profit out of the amount of goods received from the victim.