beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
around March 2016, 2016, the Defendant “2017 High-class 7”) made a false statement to pay the payment to the victim via the staff of the “E”, a livestock product distributor operated by the injured party D.
However, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price even if he received the payment from the injured party because the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price because the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price even if he received the payment from the injured party because he had been under the name of another person due to bad credit standing, and was unable to pay the price even after having received the payment from another company.
Around March 17, 2016, the Defendant received the amount of KRW 47,038,100 equivalent to the market price from the injured party; the amount of KRW 46,527,700 equivalent to the market price around March 18, 2016; the amount of KRW 63,851,000 at the market price around March 23, 2016; the amount of KRW 91,283,800 at the market price around March 24, 2016; the amount of KRW 69,306,00 at the market price around March 31, 2016; the amount of KRW 116,629,00 at the market price around April 1, 2016; and the amount of KRW 116,629,00 at the market price around March 31, 2016; and the amount of KRW 10,3184,201.
Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained the delivery of the accusation amounting to the total amount of KRW 557,766,60 through seven times in total.
"2017 Highest 1498" Defendant substantially operated a mutual livestock product distributor, "F," and G received meat from the Defendant and supplied it to the trading company.
With knowledge of the fact that G is being investigated by the fraud suspicion that it received goods from the trading companies in the course of operating the K H which is a distributor, the Defendant is aware of the fact that G, upon receipt of a request from the trading companies on March 27, 2016, “The situation that it is required to cause damage to a motor vehicle, and one cell phone is changed by one cell phone,” and then the Defendant opened one cell phone in the name of the Defendant I around March 28, 2016, and then face the face of the face-to-face.