A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From 2008 to 2008, the Defendant is a person who is serving as the representative director of (ju) E that supplies racing and bread to D, and the victim F is a person who is engaged in the service business that reduces the trade name of G from around 1994 to H (in case of a landing and anchoring of a ship loaded in a port area, the Defendant is a person who is serving in the service business that sets the lines of the anchored ship to land.).

1. On October 2009, the Defendant: (a) received from the victim through GNG Corporation (Korea Gas Corporation) in a tourist hotel coffee shop in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu; (b) around October 2009, the Defendant, upon request of the victim, introduced through GNG Corporation I (JN) the Defendant’s friendly life in the tourist hotel coffee shop in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul; (c) provided the help to receive the services of reducing the number of persons who wish to receive the services; (d) upon receipt of the request of the victim, the Defendant provided that “I would help the Vice-President, Auditor, etc. of Korea Gas Corporation receive the services of decreasing the number of persons who want to receive the services.” (d) The Defendant provided KRW 100,000,000,000 prior to the occurrence of the contract.

However, even upon the victim's request, the defendant does not have any special knowledge about the Korea Gas Corporation, and the reduced services are subject to contract with the Korea Gas Corporation and the Korea Gas Corporation did not have any intent or ability to receive the reduced services from the Korea Gas Corporation because they did not work for the Korea Gas Corporation.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received cash of KRW 50 million from the victim to the same place as the expenses.

2. On April 5, 2012, the Defendant promised to receive a service to reduce the amount to the victim as stated in the foregoing paragraph 1, but was urged to return money to the victim unless he/she had received a service to reduce the amount by multiple times because he/she failed to do so, and on April 5, 2012, the Defendant continued to provide the victim with a service contract to the victim.