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

The defendant is a person engaged in manufacturing business, such as mechanical manufacturing, with the trade name C.

On December 10, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim’s F office operated by the victim E in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, stating that “The Defendant would supply steel and make a settlement at the end of each month at the end of each week.”

However, the Defendant started transactions with the victim because the transaction was interrupted due to the failure to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 120 million to the company that received steel in August 2013. At the time of the contract, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the amount even if the sum of the bank loan exceeds KRW 1.7 billion and the employees’ wages and four premiums were not paid.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and being supplied with steel products equivalent to KRW 5,564,90 on the same day from the victim, was supplied with steel products equivalent to the market price of KRW 5,564,90 on the same day from the above date to January 28, 2014, and was supplied with steel products equivalent to KRW 60,516,181 in total at 11 times from the above date to January 28,

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The first and second prosecutorial examination protocol (including G and E parts of the statement) against the accused;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning H;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Each investigation report (a separate statement of opinion, attachment of a suspect A’s credit report, reference witness’s telephone conversations) (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that there was an intent and ability to pay the price for the goods of the victim as well as real estate owned by another transaction partner at the time of transaction with the victim. In light of each of the above evidence, according to the following evidence, the defendant: (a) the amount of the unpaid goods to K (L representative) as of December 2013, which had been paid to the victim to the previous transaction partner at the time of signing the steel supply contract with the victim was 12,5460,00 won (Evidence No. 293, 302, 307) and the existing transaction partner J (M.).