Defendant shall be punished by a fine of nine million won.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be the defendant for 90 days.

Punishment of the crime

On August 10, 2013, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would make gold-type products to be supplied to Home shopping by creating a clean air exhauster using solid fuel of F, thereby paying the cost of production to the Defendant at the E plant operated by C Victim D at Yangju-si.”

However, the Defendant did not go through F, and there was no experience in manufacturing air cleaner, so it was clear whether to make profits through the sale of air cleaner, and even if he received gold-type products from the injured party due to no particular property or import, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the manufacturing cost properly.

Defendant deceiving the victim as above and received a set of gold-type 1 set of money equivalent to KRW 6 million at the market price from the injured party, and from March 6, 2014, the Defendant obtained the delivery of gold-type 41,923,320 won in total over 15 times, such as the written list of crimes, from March 6, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or G;

1. Recording record of the examination of the witness against the accused;

1. Complaint;

1. Copy of the name card, a statement of the F Trading, and details of account transactions;

1. Product photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (referring to arranging details of damage);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act comprehensively including the relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for a crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The punishment of a fine is finally imposed in a lump sum taking into account the following: (a) the recidivism during the period of a repeated crime for the same type of punishment under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; (b) the type of the crime of this case (defence through supply transaction) and the degree of the criminal intent; (c) the circumstances leading up to the instant complaint (the defect of the goods supplied by the injured party was at issue; and (d) the victim and the accused did not reach an agreement among civil disputes; and (e) the victim has not been punished.