A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 2015, the Defendant received the Montreal consignment system from the victim E to the victim’s office in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, 220, and on the other hand, from the victim’s damage to July 2015, the Defendant agreed with the victim on the Amond consignment system, once more than 22,282,69 won in total at the market price over three times from around that time to around July 2015.

Therefore, in the situation where it is economically difficult for the Defendant to get pressure from funds, etc., the Defendant would sell the Montreald to the Defendant on August 2015.

The payment shall be made after one month.

“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the Montreal price to the victim within one month, after selling the Montreald as operating expenses due to the lack of office operation expenses at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around that time, obtained the consent from the injured party on the consignment sale, and sold the Montreal amounting to the total amount of KRW 22,282,69,000 in the market price, but did not pay the price to the injured party, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to the said amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Electronic tax invoices and letters [the defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation];

However, in full view of the above evidence, the victim proposed a consignment sale by holding the Defendant as a total of 22,282,69 won at the market price from June to July of 2015, and offered a consignment sale to the Defendant. The Defendant agreed on the consignment sale with the victim on August of 2015 on the condition that the Defendant would settle the price within one month after the Montreal was sold, and the Defendant did not pay the price despite the repeated demand of the victim by the beginning of 2017.