A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who actually operated “(StateB)B” as a performance planning company.

On October 22, 2014, the Defendant had a close relationship with the representative of the affiliated company, who holds the right to sell performance tickets of “G” in a group of group,” with the victim F, a local performance planning business entity that became aware of through the introduction of “D” restaurant located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the performance planning capacity and performance of the local performance planning business entity around that time. The Defendant would be able to hold a public performance hall in the Daejeon, Daegu, and Busan High Military Court, which is located in the Seocho-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.

“A false statement,” signed a “2015 GIVE CONAT performance contract” on the same place with the victim who believed it as it is, and received KRW 90 million as the down payment, and received KRW 10 million at the same place on October 31.

However, the Defendant, at the time, did not have any title to enter into a local performance contract with the affiliated company and did not obtain the right to publish the performance in the early consultation process of planning “G” performance under the H, the representative of the affiliated company with the right to publish the performance. He also ordered that the Defendant shall strictly prohibit the implementation through the contract with the third party and directly promote the Defendant, as there is concern that the location of the responsibility is unclear in the process. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any title to enter into a local performance contract with the victim based on the right to publish the performance of the “G” while there is no other property including liquidity, such as funds or cash, etc. necessary for the operation of the office, while the Defendant did not take measures to compensate for the failure to perform the contract. As the Defendant would have to use the funds as expenses, etc. necessary for the Defendant’s planning and operation of the office, and thus, even if he received the local performance from the damaged party under the originally agreed name of “G”, the Defendant would have been holding the local performance.