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

Around July 2013, the Defendant, as the representative of C, made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would develop and supply the control tower entering the petroleum market to pay the price in cash at the end of each following month,” to the victim F, who operates the company E at the office of the above company located D at the time of harmony.”

However, at the time, C was liable not only for the debt of approximately KRW 1.3 billion but also for the tax of KRW 130 million, and it was impossible to receive the product from G due to the failure to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 100 million to G, which is the existing business partner, and it was not possible to receive the product from G, and therefore, it was not possible to pay the price to the victim even if the product was supplied by the victim operation company, and there was no intention or ability to pay the price.

The defendant is against the victim of the same damage.

9. From 30.30. to 3,388,000 won, around November 29, 11.30. to 63,03,300 won for the same year, and to 41,649,300 won for the 41,649,300 won for each of the supply of control rolls, and to acquire them by deceptively by obtaining the supply of control rolls equivalent to 108,070,60 won for each of them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Some of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant;

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Investigation report (report on the execution of telephone investigation to the J President of the G), (Report on the conduct of telephone investigation to the accused), and (Expanting the details of passbooks in the Corporation);

1. Data related to the amount in arrears C [the defendant and his defense counsel did not have the intent to commit fraud. In light of the debt status at the time of the stock company C and the circumstances leading to the transaction with the victim, etc., it is sufficient to view that the defendant at the time recognized the possibility of not paying the amount of goods to the victim at least, and that there was an internal intention to recognize the possibility of not paying the amount of goods to the victim and, that is, dolu

1. Criminal facts;