A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the defendant shall be sentenced to the above punishment for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a culture of a complete pet pattern B with the trade name called "C" in the Jeonnamdo-gun B.

On January 31, 2015, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would pay the price within one week or two weeks to the employees of the Victim D Co., Ltd., Ltd., in the office of C around January 31, 2015.”

However, the Defendant did not have the ability to repay the material price due to economic circumstances such as receiving demand for repayment from the E bank because the Defendant failed to repay the loans 260 million won borrowed from the E bank around 2011.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the employees of the victim company as above and acquired the equipment equivalent to 26,466,00 won at the market price from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. C management ledger;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a permit for seed production fisheries;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Reduction area of the sentencing criteria [the range of recommending punishment] General Fraud (less than KRW 100 million): In cases where a person intentionally commits a deceitful act with a prison labor for one month to one year (special mitigation).

2. The Defendant, who was sentenced to a sentence, was in an unsatisfy situation and was supplied with goods from the victim.

considerable damage has not yet been recovered, and the defendant has not yet agreed with the victim.

On the other hand, however, the defendant is both aware of and against his mistake.

The scale of damage is not very significant.

The defendant does not seem to have committed the crime of this case with a conclusive intention.

Part of the material price claim stated in the facts charged was set off against the defendant's claim against the victim.

Defendant.