A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has operated a wholesale and retail business with the trade name "D" in the Daegu mid-gu C market.

At the time of May 201, the Defendant had accumulated the obligation to pay to the majority of the transaction partners, had been operating the enemy over several years, and there was no particular property in possession, so there was no intention or ability to pay the amount even if the Defendant received additional goods from the transaction partner.

Nevertheless, the Defendant requested the victim E, who is the business partner, from around May 6, 201 to around September 6, 2011, to supply the f3,24,100 won in total from the victims in the same manner, and acquired the f3,24,100 won in total from March 1, 2011 to September 8, 201, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Form, by acquiring the f3,24,100 won from the victims through the same method.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the prosecution of the accused and the interrogation of the suspect by the police;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Written complaint, investigation report (amount of damage and date and time specified) (the defendant and defense counsel did not have any intent to acquire goods from the victims;

DaNN

However, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the above evidence, namely, the Defendant, even at the investigative agency, had already suffered about KRW 80 million property damage from around 2005 at the investigative agency, and had been prevented from returning to the way of settling accounts on credit by another customer in cash arising from the delivery of goods due to the lack of financial conditions from that time, and sales of the goods.

On September 13, 2011, the defendant stated that he was supplied with the goods from the victims until September 8, 201, and had not been able to cover them from them. On September 13, 2011, the defendant did not leave the house operated by the defendant and the house in custody in the warehouse, and did not leave the house, and did so to the victims.