Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Punishment of the crime

[2013 Highest 243] The Defendant is a person who served as a business director of a stock company B from August 2012 to December 2, 2012, and the victim C is a person who served as a representative director of the said company.

1. From Jun. 2012 to Nov. 1, 2012, the Defendant concluded a false statement that “The Defendant was engaged in negotiations with the interested parties, etc. in order to allow the victim to deliver an original decoration to Earart B in a stock company, and the salesroom occupants’ contract will be sexually formed. In order to operate a business, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the expenses need to be subsidized and changed.”

However, at the time, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to conclude the sales contract with the company B, and there was no intention or ability to conclude the sales contract with the company B.

As above, the Defendant deceivings the victim as to and against it, and under the pretext of expenses, etc. from the victim, up to one million won with the Defendant’s new bank account on June 8, 2012, and the same year.

8.30,000 won, per single bank account of the defendant, in the same year;

9.7. The defrauded transferred 350,00 won to the same account on the 18th of the same month, 374,000 won to the same account on the 19th of the same month, 1.5 million won to the same account on the 19th of October of the same year, and 4,691,000 won to the same account on the 30th of November of the same year.

2. On November 2012, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the Defendant stating that “The sales contract between Emart and B should be completed, such as the purchase of goods code has been set up in Emart and the specific sale schedule has been agreed, and the goods should be stored as soon as possible.” The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “When the Emart advertising book operator entered into a different status of goods, it is difficult for a person in charge of Empt to order the goods to be delivered to Emart manufacturers and deliver them to Empt.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to deliver the goods to Empt because he did not have concluded the contract as stated in Paragraph 1, and even if he produced the goods, it is another alternative to sell them.