A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who actually operates the “E” in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D.

1. On October 26, 2014, the Defendant shall be provided with the Fvictim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) around 11:00 in Yangsan, and the victim’s representative director H shall pay KRW 100,000 to the victim’s representative director in advance the advance payment for the non-water-raising dyeing dyeing dyeing dyeing dyeing dye, and instead, shall be offset against the price for the dye dyeing dyeing dyeing from April 2015, 200.

“.....”

However, the defendant was operated.

E around that time, sales are low to the extent that it is difficult to cope with approximately KRW 130 million, including monthly wages and management expenses for employees, and KRW 100,000,000,000,000, and even if the amount of goods is paid in advance from the injured party due to the fact that the amount of goods is more than KRW 1,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

Defendant: (a) received delivery of KRW 50 million at a face value on October 27, 2014 from the injured party of H; (b) KRW 25 million at a face value on November 10 of the same year; and (c) KRW 25 million at a face value on December 1 of the same year; and (d) provided only KRW 25 million at a face value on December 1 of the same year to the injured party on March 2015.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as above, abused 62,585,353 won by deceiving the victim.

2. The criminal defendant, through deception, has been supplied by the victim from January 201 to the end of the following month after he/she had been subject to the supply of his/her hair, but he/she had no intention or ability to pay the price even if he/she received the goods from the victim even if he/she received the goods from the victim, because he/she had been unable to return the original or salt processing advance supplied by the victim due to the low sale and the increase of debts.

Nevertheless, from November 1, 2014 to March 15, 2015, the Defendant is an employee in charge of the victim’s name in secret.