[criminal records] On February 28, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months for fraud in the Sungnam branch support of Suwon branch, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 21, 2013.

[2] On January 17, 2012, the defendant was the representative director of the D Co., Ltd. at the time at the office of the victim D Co., Ltd. located in the wife population C at the time of Gyeonggi-si.

E is currently conducting semiconductor equipment repair business, and at the present stage of a contract for the sale of semiconductor equipment, it is possible to repay up to March 19, 2012, if it is loans KRW 300 million since the current shortage of funds is insufficient.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, the defendant was in operation at the time.

The FF Company has a debt amounting to KRW 400 million due to the difficulties in managing its management, and even if the F Company has a personal debt amounting to KRW 300 million, it was planned to repay the personal debt, etc. from the victim company even if it receives KRW 300 million from the victim company, and therefore there was no intention or ability to repay to the victim company until March 19, 2

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim company as above and received KRW 300 million from the victim company to the foreign exchange bank account in the name of the defendant company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A written agreement on loan of funds, receipt and promise of funds, and a detailed statement of passbook transaction;

1. Previous conviction: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of inquiry about criminal history;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act on the Handling of Concurrent Crimes provided that the reason for sentencing of Article 39(1) [the scope of recommendation] of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act does not exist (one to four years) in the basic area (one to one year) of types 2 (one hundred million won or more, or less than five hundred million won) [the decision of sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] unfavorable to a person who has a special sentencing] [the fact that the amount of fraud is a large amount, circumstances favorable to the fact that there is a same kind of power: confession and reflect; the above circumstances and the age of the defendant are considered to be equal to the case where the judgment was rendered together with