The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year for the crimes of No. 1 and No. 2, and by a fine of 10 million won for the crimes of No. 3 as stated in the judgment.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 16, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to the crime of occupational embezzlement at the Incheon District Court on August 16, 2018, to the five-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for a crime of fraud on the 24th of the same month. On November 28, 2018, the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 28, 2018, with two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for a term of 6 months for fraud in the Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court.

In fact, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim B, who is a subordinate employee, purchased a high-priced car and operated a siren business using it, and did not have the intent or ability to make profits from it. In fact, the Defendant was planned to receive money from the victim and to use it for the expenses of the Defendant’s personal business.

Nevertheless, on February 25, 2014, the Defendant, at the office of D Co., Ltd. located in the area near the area of the party branch of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, the Defendant, “If a driver of high-priced passenger car such as bents, causes a traffic accident, the Defendant shall siren the same kind of passenger car in the insurance company during the next repair period. However, if us purchases the vehicle and lends it to the insurance company, she may enjoy considerable profits from the business, which she may use the vehicle as the purchase fund for the event event, and then make profits every month thereafter.” On the same day from the victim, the “corporate F” described in the bill of indictment by the bank (company E) in the name of the Defendant appears to be a clerical error in the “corporate E” on the same day.

(Evidence Records 72 pages) Ro-ro 50 million won was issued.

Accordingly, the defendant was delivered KRW 50 million by deceiving the victim.

B. The 23 million won fraud defendant against the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the amount to the victim B, a subordinate employee, to the creditor of the defendant, even though he/she had the victim B repaid the amount to the creditor of the defendant on behalf of the defendant.

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.