A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has been engaged in selling cosmetics in the Internet car page.

The victims C and the victims D, as cosmetics and retail stores, become aware of the defendant in the Internet NA-based cosmetics sale car page around December 2014 and April 2015, respectively, and made transactions.

1. On April 15, 2015, the Defendant sent out KRW 10 million, which is 50% of the sales proceeds of tegratium, to the victim at the Fmaa site shop operated by the Defendant on the second floor of 204 of the building E, a Gaka-si, Gasi District, via Kakakaoo Akaoothm, to the victim, at the Fmaa site shop operated by the Defendant.

4.17. To deliver cosmetics to vehicles at a place designated by the Party;

“The purpose of “ was to make a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had been instructed to demand repayment of the amount equivalent to KRW 180,000,000 due to the occurrence of bonds and bank damages, while there was no particular hospitalization or property, and even if the Defendant received the sale proceeds of cosmetics from the victim as above, he did not have the intent or ability to properly supply the above cosmetics to the victim.

Therefore, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 10 million from the victim as the purchase price of the cosmetics on the same day, from the victim, to the one bank account in the name of G (H).

2. On April 6, 2015, the Defendant sent KRW 5,485,760 to a single bank account in the name of G, which was used for the cosmetics sales business, due to an error of misunderstanding the victim’s horses, even though the victim D instructed female-friendly her female-gu I to deposit the cosmetics sales proceeds.

Therefore, the defendant, despite having preserved the above money for the victim, is the same month.

7. The said money was fully withdrawn in cash and embezzled by voluntary consumption for the Defendant’s personal repayment of debt at around that time.

(i) the evidence;