If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On June 18, 2011, the Defendant is a person who is engaged in wholesale and retail business of automation facilities with the trade name "D," and received a request from F of the head of the administrative office F office E, the victim foundation, to supply five line teams in the year 1997, which is the victim foundation, and the fact was that the Defendant did not intend to deliver five line teams in the year 1997, as requested by the above F, and attempted to receive the price difference by supplying line teams in the year 1978 and the year 1983, which are much old compared to the above F. However, the Defendant did so as to supply the line teams in the year 197, as requested by the victim. Accordingly, the Defendant got the victim to receive the price difference from the above victim. < Amended by Act No. 10880, Jul. 11, 2011>

Summary of Evidence

1. The entry of witnesses F and G in the third protocol of the trial;

1. A protocol concerning the police investigation of the accused (including F part of the statement);

1. Investigation report (to make a statement at the H phone of a witness);

1. Written complaint, written request for purchase and supply of raw materials other than a half-way or smuggling, and written contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the statement statement to F;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not include a relatively large amount of fraud by the reason of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order, and there is an agreement with the victim after the prosecution, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and other arguments in the instant case are taken into account. The summary of the grounds for determining the issues seems to be denying the act of

① At the time when the Defendant was requested from the victim to supply the first half of the year 1997, the Defendant did not receive the request by specifying it as the first half of the year 1997, and therefore there was no need for the enemy to trade it as the first half of the year 197.

② At the time of the above transaction, it was not specified in the first half of the trade, which is due to the nature of the used goods.