beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On July 2, 2007, the Defendant entered into a contract with the content that the Defendant would receive food materials equivalent to KRW 1.6 billion from D operated by an incorporated association C from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008.
However, at the time, the defendant did not have any specific property and was responsible for the amount of KRW 300 million in the process of the incorporation of the company, and even if he received food materials from the injured party, he did not have the ability to pay the cost normally.
On November 29, 2007, the Defendant received rice equivalent to KRW 35,500,000 at the market price from the injured party on November 29, 2007, and acquired and fraudulently acquired rice equivalent to KRW 244,209,50 at the market price from March 13, 2008 from the injured party from March 13, 2008, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement of E in the police interrogation protocol for the accused;
1. Each police statement made in relation to F, E, and G;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to food materials supply contract, a detailed statement of each transaction, and a copy of notification of cancellation of a contract;
1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds for sentencing [the scope of recommending punishment] of the general fraud [the grounds for sentencing [the scope of recommending punishment] No person (10 million won or more, or less than 500 million won) in the basic area (1 to 4 years) of the type (1 to 50 million won) [the decision of sentencing] [the defendant did not have any criminal records exceeding the same kind and fine. The defendant prepared a fair certificate of intent to pay 200,000 won every month with the victim company and 1039 times every month. The victim company received dividends of 500,160 won through the physical movable auction on November 20, 2012. However, despite the maximum amount of fraud of this case, despite the maximum amount of fraud of this case, it was almost not repaid and the damage was not recovered through surety insurance.