When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won shall be one day.

On September 4, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for occupational breach of trust at the Jeonju District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 12th of the same month.

On October 2016, the Defendant stated to the effect that the “D gas station” operated by the Victim C, which was operated by the Defendant, at the early May 2016, the Defendant: “I would like to trade the oil in the vehicle owned by the E corporation on credit; the oil price will be settled at the beginning of each month.”

However, in fact, the monthly amount of bus installment payments to be paid by the Defendant was at least KRW 80 million, labor cost of KRW 25 million, and labor cost of KRW 10 million, while monthly sales was at least KRW 6-70,000,000 for KRW 6-70,000, monthly amount of monthly sales, and there was no intent or ability to pay the amount of monthly sales even if the Defendant was provided with oil from the victim, because the monthly amount of monthly sales was at least KRW 6-70,000,000, and the monthly amount of monthly sales was at least KRW 6-70,00

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, received oil equivalent to KRW 25,546,70 from October 11 of the same year to December 14 of the same year from the victim to receive oil equivalent to KRW 25,546,70 in total from around 118 times as shown in the annexed crime list from around December 14 of the same year.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The main transaction account book and the transaction account book with respect to C by the police statement;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records, etc. and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which reflects the defendant's mistake, the fact that the defendant has no record of having been sentenced to the punishment for the same kind of crime and the suspension of execution, and the principle of equity between the defendant and the case that he has been subject to the punishment at the same time as the crime entered in the judgment, should be considered.