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

Defendant

A is a person who has a substantial operation of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. in Daejeon-gu.

Around May 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E in the F office operated by the victim E in Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon, stating that “The Defendant would make an electrical construction with the present amount of KRW 2 billion to KRW 3 billion, but would make the supply of electrical materials to B once every two months during the week.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if he received the electric materials from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received tapes equivalent to KRW 97,500 from the victim around May 21, 2016, and received from the victim the tapes, from which they were supplied, and then acquired them by deception, after being supplied with electric materials equivalent to KRW 185,849,921 as shown in the crime list by the same method from January 16, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of each police interrogation protocol of the accused (including the statement of the E in-house)

1. Electronic tax invoice, electronic tax invoice, and transaction partner director with respect to E;

1. Application of the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal complaint, investigative report (person for reference G telephone conversations), investigative report (person for reference G telephone conversations 2), investigation report (person for criminal complaint E and telephone conversation);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding probation and community service order

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant did not pay the material price due to the bad management, and he did not have the intent to acquire it by fraud.

2. Determination

A. While recognizing the possibility that the payment of the price would not be possible, even if the goods are supplied with goods due to the aggravation of credit in the continued goods transaction relationship, even though the goods are placed in a doubtful situation, the intention or ability to pay the price will be hidden.