The punishment of a defendant shall be eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On December 21, 2015, the Defendant would have F, a staff member of two well-dyingx Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “dub well-ex”) at the E office operated by the Defendant in Dobong-gu Seoul, Dobong-gu, Seoul, receive the original amount directly from the original Cheong, including the outstanding transaction amount of KRW 4 million, if the Defendant supplied the original amount.

“.....”

F trusting that end on January 19, 2016, around 17,632 P.D. (47,935,030 Won), around February 4, 2016, F supplied the Defendant with poly Estez (3,025,660 Won) of P.D. (3,025,660 Won), around February 4, 2016, and 648 P.C. (1,211,760 Won Won) of P.D. (1,21,760 Won).

However, as long as the Defendant did not receive all the money from the original Cheongchi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the original cost to the two Hybex. The money received from the original Cheongchi had H, the original processing company, receive the payment first from the two Hybex, and the remainder was considered to be used as repayment of the existing debt, the Defendant company’s operating expenses, etc.

There was no intention to allow two well-dyings to receive the price directly from the original office.

The defendant acquired the same victim's well-dying architecture with the original group of 52,172,450 won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's oral statement;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of business agreements;

1. Determination of punishment under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, which is the legal provision on the crime;

1. Recommendation type of sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to one year and six months;

2. Determination of punishment: No error shall be recognized;

No. 5 of a fine.

The Defendant prepared a work agreement formally at F’s request, rather than allowing two well-dyingx to receive the original cost directly from the original office. Since then, it was difficult for the Defendant to pay the work agreement due to external circumstances, such as closing of a new trial and increasing the salary expense.