On May 13, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years at the Seoul Central District Court on June, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 21, 201.

Around November 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “F Company” office located in Seongdong-gu Seoul building 610, the Defendant would pay the balance within 15 days if he/she supplies the victim G with clothes equivalent to KRW 146,850,00,000, such as Libera, to the victim G.

However, even if the defendant processed clothes from the injured party and received them, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the processing cost to the injured party within the agreed date.

On February 22, 2010, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received from the injured party the clothes of 12,683,550 won, including 1,200 panty panty 1,200 panty panty 1,683,550 won; and (c) received from March 31, 2010, the Defendant supplied six times in total, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, the clothes of KRW 87,931,250 in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness H and G respective legal statements;

1. Partial entry of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant by the prosecution;

1. A copy of the delivery contract and a detailed statement of each transaction;

1. Payment plan and plan for the supply of goods;

1. Court rulings declaring bankruptcy;

1. A value-added tax return;

1. Investigation report (the confirmation of crimes committed during the period of attachment and suspension of execution of the same type of force);

1. A previous conviction: A criminal history inquiry, sentence, and investigation report [Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion] asserts that the Defendant did not have promised to pay to the victim, and that the Defendant was unable to pay the price due to a defect in the goods supplied by the victim and the failure to observe the delivery date, and that the Defendant did not intentionally commit the instant crime.

The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, is like the re-power, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of execution of transaction, so long as the defendant does not confession.