A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant concluded that, in the office of the Victim Co., Ltd. in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Building B 1506, the victim Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., Ltd., “Around 15-20 tons of the F of the original land processing company F of the victim Co., Ltd., in the U.S., the Defendant was using approximately KRW 15-20 tons in the month of the F of the nuclear land processing company F of the U.S. C., which was operated within the limit of KRW 50 million, the Defendant would supply the

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay the price even if he was supplied with a crypter from June 2012, because the sales amount was reduced due to the legal dispute with the U.S. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. M., the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price even if he was supplied with a crypter by the victim company.

Around December 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim company; (b) supplied the victim company with a chickens amounting to KRW 31,880,100 at the market price; and (c) was additionally supplied with a chickens amounting to KRW 18,90,000 at the market price around January 4, 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A criminal investigation report and a criminal investigation report (verification of the address of a witness G telephone communications);

1. Application of transaction specifications ( January 4, 2013), transaction specifications ( December 17, 2012), promissory notes, and credit information traceability statutes;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code applicable to criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the Act on the Selection of Punishment [the defendant, at the time of the crime of this case, was in a state where the transaction with the above company was cut down due to a dispute with P. P. M., the principal transaction company at the time of the crime of this case, and did not pay taxes, and not pay wages to workers, and the loan company and the company were in a state where they were not paid. The defendant was responsible for the debt to the lending company and the company