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

On February 2, 2018, the Defendant, while preparing for the business after accepting Cma in Songpa-gu Seoul from D, was driving in a way that would normally settle the value of the goods to the victim E who supplied the said Mma in a normal manner.

On February 27, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to F, an employee of the victim, stating, “In Korea, the value of the goods would have been received at time, and the value of the goods would have been paid at time, and the existing land would have been continuously supplied.”

However, the Defendant had a debt of KRW 30,000,00,000, such as the loan, without any specific property and monthly income, and as such, the Defendant had no intent or ability to pay the amount normally even if he was provided with the fixed land by the victim because of the bad credit standing.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, caused the victim to take steps equivalent to KRW 4,274,126 on the same day from the victim, such as swine, etc.

3. Food materials equivalent to KRW 481,815, such as fumiths and duckss, around 16. The same year.

3. Dried meat equivalent to KRW 1,243,670, such as overlaps with pigs around 20. The same year.

3. Around 24.24. He was supplied with static meat equivalent to KRW 2,208,138, including swine bath, and acquired the total amount of 8,207,749 won on five occasions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Customer Director

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished twice for the same kind of crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime at the same time is disadvantageous to the Defendant, but it seems that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and the management of the Mart operated is difficult, making it difficult to bring about the instant case. The Defendant paid the victim more than the amount of damage and agreed with the victim.