A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D (V, 73 years of age) located in Masung-si, the Defendant: “If the Defendant sent electricity produced by installing a solar cell board on the warehouse before sending it to the victim, he would make a profit at a level of KRW 600,000 per month; construction cost of KRW 35,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to install a solar cell board to the victim.” However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to prevent the victim from doing so

The Defendant, as seen above, received KRW 2,50,000,000 from the victim of the injury by deceiving the victim, and received KRW 32,50,000 from the Defendant’s agricultural bank’s account (E) at the place of Suwon-si, Samcheon-ro, Samcheon-ro, 1291, in cash, at the place of Suwon Agricultural Co., Ltd., Sucheon-gu, Suwon-si, 201. On July 30, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 32,50,000 from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (E) at the said place of Suwon-si, Suwon-do, Seoul-do, and received KRW 35

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to construction contracts of solar power plants, details of financial transactions, copies of passbooks and passbooks, remittance increase, and financial transaction statement;

1. The following circumstances acknowledged by the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the grounds for conviction of a sentence of imprisonment, and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, the Defendant and the victim did not know each other. However, the Defendant recommended installation of solar cell boards by visiting the home of the business victim and making profits as stated in its reasoning; the victim, upon the Defendant’s repeated solicitation, paid money to the Defendant as construction cost upon receiving loans from financial institutions; however, the Defendant, after entering into a contract, provided that additional expenses were incurred prior to a system linkage application procedure, and the victim agreed to consistently in this court.