Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of the C Cargo Vehicle, who is a cargo article belonging to the Ganman Regional Headquarters of the 39 king ICD, the 39 Haak-ro.

The Defendant, as a cargo borrower, obtained a subsidy card from the victim of Incheon Metropolitan City, purchased the transit using the subsidy card and received a paid subsidy from the injured party, but the driver's license was revoked on January 10, 201 due to driving of a motor vehicle on drinking around January 10, 201 and became disqualified for trucking transport.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant was disqualified as above and cannot receive the fuel payment from the injured party, the Defendant deceiving the injured party by purchasing the transit at D oil stations around January 12, 201 by using a subsidy card (including a new card), and had the injured party pay 110,071 won of the fuel payment calculated on the basis of the main fuel amount to the new card company, and the Defendant exempted the payment of the amount equivalent to that amount from January 12, 201 to February 8, 2012, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table 40 times in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution or the protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on internal investigation reports (Attachment to the second response data on payment details of the payment details of the payment amount of the payment amount for lighting by national land traffic congestion);

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the provisional payment order, and the defendant thought the subsidy as the subsidy to be paid to the truck, and the defendant was not notified of the victim's return of the subsidy.