beta
Text
A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two months with prison labor for the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant and for four months with prison labor for the crime No. 2.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On December 16, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court, which became final and conclusive on the 24th of the same month. On May 19, 2011, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced two years of a suspended sentence of six months to a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act at the Seoul Northern District Court, which became final and conclusive on May 27, 201, and on June 26, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of a suspended sentence of eight months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court, which became final and conclusive on July 4, 2014.
The Defendant is a person who has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing garments under the trade name B from around 2003 to around 2010, and (ju)C for four years from 2011.
1. On July 5, 2007, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would repay the price to the Defendant up to July 12, 2012, by providing the victim with the king 2,200 mar 2,200 mar 380 mar 380 mar mar 28,150,000 mar mar 28,150.
However, there is no special property at the time, and even if the obligation is over 200 million won and the goods are supplied on credit, there is no intention or ability to pay the price properly.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received from the victim the 28,150,000 sat 2,200 mat 380 mat mat 2,200 mat mat 380 mat mat mal, and acquired 330 mat mat mat mach.
2. On November 5, 2011, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant shall pay back 518 feet to the Victim with credit in KRW 24,450,000” at the C office in which the Defendant had been operated by the Defendant located in Chungcheongnam-si.
However, there was no special property at the time, and even if there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if the goods are supplied by the victim due to a large amount of debt.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received products such as 24,450,000 won higher than the market price from the victim.