The Defendant is the representative director of C, and around August 2012, at the above company office located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, expressed to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the price by September 17, 2012, if he delivers computer peripheral devices,” while making telephone conversations to the victim E’s vice head F, and the Defendant sent an order related thereto to the victim’s e-mail address around the same month.

However, the Defendant had no special property and had a debt of approximately KRW 500 million, except for apartment buildings worth KRW 80 million at the time. The Defendant thought that the income accrued from the resale of the parts supplied by the victim company would be appropriated for the payment of the above debt, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if the Defendant received the computer peripherals from the victim company.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving F, received from the victim company the total sum of 319,138,776 won of computer peripheral devices, such as green card terminals, from the victim company on August 30, 2012, and acquired them by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Filing an accusation, each electronic tax invoice, specifications of electronic commerce, orders, details of arrears, details of requests for loans, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on banking transactions;

1. In light of the relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, the reason for sentencing the sentence of imprisonment in this case, and the background, method and contents of the crime in question, etc., the defendant should be strictly punished in light of the fact that the amount of damage is large. However, the defendant has a depth of his mistake, the defendant transfers 20,174,000 won to the victim company, the total of 20,174,000 won of the claim held by C, and the fact that there is no other criminal records other than the fine imposed once due to drinking driving, and all other circumstances of this case are considered.