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

On November 9, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the Defendant’s E office, a stock company in the business management of the Defendant, where the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D Prize was located in Ddong 244, that “The Defendant would transfer the price of the goods to the end of the following month if he/she would supply Man-dong 4,900km.”

However, on November 9, 201, the Defendant was liable for the amount of KRW 70 million for the goods of KRW 70 million to H, which is another business partner, and the Defendant was also liable for the loan amount of KRW 220,000,000,00,000, and the Defendant’s management Co., Ltd. was in a situation where the deficit amounting to KRW 1 billion was paid at the time, and there was no intention or ability to pay the said amount even if the said goods were supplied by the victim.

On November 17, 2011, the Defendant was supplied with 2,702km-dong 33,929,410 won at the market price on the 25th day of the same month, from the victim, at KRW 29,473,560 at the market price.

As a result, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 5,343 km-dong, which is equivalent to the market price of KRW 69,743,267 (including value-added tax).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of the defendant's statement and I's statement in the suspect examination protocol of the defendant against the defendant

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Customer director, detailed statement of transactions, and electronic tax invoice;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to credit information, social reports, and full certificates of registered matters;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the first offender and the deposit of a part of the amount of damage, etc.);

1. As the Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was unable to recover the claim from another trader, the Defendant was not able to repay the Defendant’s requested payment obligation to the victim, and the intent of payment and the ability to pay the amount was sufficient at the time of purchase from the victim. Thus, the Defendant’s civil liability against the victim.