A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was an employee of the Victim C Co., Ltd. with the office in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who was an employee of the victim C Co., Ltd., and then purchased goods from the damaged company, and then requested the return of goods, regardless of whether or not the goods are recovered, and when the returned goods are disposed of after the recovery of the goods, he did not separately confirm whether the goods were actually stored into the manufacturer.

On June 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) designated Gyeonggi-nam City D as a delivery place as if he would pay the price in a normal condition; (b) purchased 1,900 won at the market price; and (c) demanded return; (d) refunded the price of the returned goods; (e) recovered the goods after the completion of return; and (e) obtained the victim’s goods at a total of 313 times from September 7, 2018, including the recovery and use of the goods by the Defendant; and (e) obtained the victim’s goods at a total of 30,048,330 won, such as the list of crimes, from that time until September 7, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Fact-finding certificates and statements prepared by the police officer in relation to E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning filing of complaints and text records;

1. As a whole, the court recognizes the facts constituting the crime which was prosecuted for concurrent crimes under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, including the pertinent Article of the Act on the Punishment of Crimes and the choice of punishment, and recognizes the same as it is: Provided, That even if only the legal evaluation on the number of crimes is different, it does not put any disadvantage to the defense of the defendant, the court may punish him as a single comprehensive crime

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do546 delivered on July 21, 1987, etc.). The prosecutor prosecuted each of the fraudulent acts of this case as substantive concurrent crimes, but each of the fraudulent acts of this case repeatedly committed against the same victim for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent.