A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2010, the Defendant would pay KRW 13 million to the victim C at the underground teahouse in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul. The Defendant would promptly sell it to the victim C, if he/she considers it as a cover of KRW 13 million in the month of selling it.

In addition, even though the Defendant, after disposing of the above release on bail, was thought to have been able to consume the proceeds, and there was no other surplus funds to the victim because he did not intend to pay the proceeds to the victim, and thus, he was led only once a day, by deceiving the victim as above, and was issued a set of release on bail equivalent to KRW 13 million at the market price from the place of the damage.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by C by the witness in the third public trial protocol;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to a copy of the confirmation document prepared by the defendant (No. 11)

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 32 (1) 3 and Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss an Application for Compensation Order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 1, 201)

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant received a set of release on bail from the injured party. However, as stated in the facts constituting a crime, there was no deception of the injured party, and the aforementioned set of release on bail did not intend to return it to the injured party because the market price was a few hundred thousand won. Therefore, there was no intention to commit fraud.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, is like the re-performance of the accused before and after the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, and the process of transaction, unless the accused is led to confession.