A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that 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

1. On May 9, 2017, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract with the victim on May 9, 2017, on the following grounds: (b) the Defendant: (c) concluded a contract with the victim on May 9, 2017, for the supply of the said content to the victim: (a) “The Defendant imported the Russia Sea ginseng while importing the Russia Sea Water from the Republic of Korea; (d) the Plaintiff may exclusively supply the Russi Sea Water within one month if he/she takes the income from the Russia Sea Water; and (e) concluded a contract for the supply of the said content with the victim on May 9, 2017.

However, even if the defendant receives the above payments from the complainant, he did not have experience in properly importing Russian fishery products, and he thought that he would use the proceeds received for personal purposes, so that he did not have an intention or ability to exclusively supply the damage to the victim within one month, since he did not think that he would use them for personal purposes.

On May 12, 2017, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) transferred the amount of KRW 10 million to the F Bank Account (G) in the name of the representative director of the Defendant to the F Bank Account (G) in the name of the F Bank Resolution Committee; and (c) acquired financial benefits equivalent to the said amount.

2. On May 15, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of Vietnam War A, with the victim, at the place specified in paragraph (1) around May 15, 2017, on the following grounds: “The Defendant, while making a telephone conversation with the victim, he/she would be able to exclusively supply the proceeds for the income of Gap, because he/she would be able to exclusively supply the proceeds within one month,” and entered into a contract for the supply of Vietnam War A, with the victim at the place specified in paragraph (1).

However, even if the defendant receives the above payments from the complainant, he did not have experience in properly importing the Vietnam fishery products, and he thought that he would use the received amount for personal purposes, so he did not have an intention or ability to import and supply the Vietnam fishery products to the victim within one month.

As above, the defendant deceivings the victim, and thereby importing the victim from the victim.