A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 13, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution for fraud in this court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 29, 2018.

Around September 4, 2015, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would pay the price in cash on the 15th day of the following month when the root year is supplied” to the victim G, which is a person who operated the food distribution company in the name of “A” and “B” in Yang-gu, Gangwon-do and the “B” in Yang-gu, Gangwon-do.

However, the Defendant, at the time, bears the obligation of approximately KRW 100 million to the Customer. However, the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to pay the price even if he received the root year from the injured party because the management of the company was difficult.

The Defendant obtained from the injured party the root year of KRW 21,88,00 in total eight times from the time of the damage to November 14 of the same year from the time of the damage, and obtained the root year of KRW 21,88,00 from the damaged party to the time of the previous crime list (1).

The defendant of "2018 Highest 2723" is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of agricultural products under the trade name of "F" in Yang-gu, Gangwon-do H.

1. On September 14, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim I that “The Defendant would supply agricultural products to the victim I on credit, and later pay the price later.”

However, at that time, the Defendant did not have any outstanding amount that was paid by the customer, and the financial status was not good, such as paying off the debt equivalent to KRW 100 million, and even if the Defendant received agricultural products from the injured party and supplied it to the customer, it was thought that the settlement amount received from the customer is used as the operating expenses of the Defendant’s business. Accordingly, even if the agricultural products are supplied from the injured party on credit, there was no intention or ability to pay the amount normally even if it is supplied to the injured party.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the same.