Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On October 23, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for the crime of indecent act by force at the Seoul Central District Court on August 23, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 30, 2014.

The defendant is the representative of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dispute Resolution E, which carries on art works and agricultural product distribution business, and around June 30, 2012, the defendant told the victim to purchase rice at the victim G's office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building 1218, "The defendant sold the rice at home, which is good, good, good, good in urine, and so that the rice at home can not be burged."

However, even if the defendant received rice purchase price from the victim, he did not intend to send the above rice to the victim.

The Defendant had the victim pay 1.2 million won of rice purchase price with a card in the name of the victim on the same day.

In this respect, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H and I;

1. A detailed statement of card transactions;

1. Previous convictions: Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel in the summary of the case agreement, each copy of the judgment, etc.

1. At the time of the settlement of the rice purchase price, the claimed victim did not send rice to the Defendant at the time of the settlement and did not inform the Defendant of the directors’ address. The Defendant did not send rice to the victim.

2. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., the victim, H, and I, who was at the site of this case, planned the defendant to move to Seoul, and therefore there was no fact that the defendant sent rice to the defendant. Rather, the defendant stated that he would send rice to the victim's house at the time of the defendant's living in the city of tolerance, and the victim was not a director at the time of tolerance that he had been residing in this country, and the defendant was promoted together with the defendant around that time.