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 becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 20, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around June 20, 2012, at “Cmatet” operated by the Defendant under the ground, sent the attitude that “when supplied rice and miscellaneous rice by the 15th day of each month, the Defendant would pay the price in cash on the 20th day of the following month; and (b) would pay the price in cash on the 5th day of the following month if supplied the rice and miscellaneous rice by the 16th day.”

However, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price properly to the said victim, since the Defendant sold rice and miscellaneous rice supplied by the said victim, as it had to pay the price for sales to the said F, as it did not have any intention or ability to pay the price properly to the said victim.

The Defendant was supplied with rice and miscellaneous rice equivalent to KRW 70,773,400 in total from June 27, 2012 to August 24, 2012 by the said victim.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. A complaint, a copy of the agreement on trade in goods, a copy of the number of shares per transaction, a copy of the statement of delivery by date, a written confirmation, and a copy of the Schlage sales contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry reports;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant is subject to the same period of suspension of execution and the same period of fine, and there are disadvantageous circumstances to the defendant, such as the nature of the crime and the gravity of the crime in light of the method and consequence of the crime in this case. However, the defendant was not subject to the sentence and has reached an agreement with the victim, and his mistake has been remarkably divided and his social relation is obvious.