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

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 12, 2013, the Defendant would pay the amount from “D” operated by the Victim C, which is located in the Dondo Gun, to E, from “D” to the employee E, by the late May 31, 2014, at the time of delivery of 220,000 won of the previous uniforms.

“.....”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant had a personal obligation of KRW 430 million and a bank interest of KRW 162,000,000,000,000 and paid more than KRW 2,000,000,000 on monthly basis. Moreover, even if the Defendant had already been supplied by another company, he did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount in time even if he was supplied with the return.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and supplied the victim with the total amount of KRW 46 million and the total amount of KRW 220,000,000,000 as the market price on the same day by the victim and acquired property profits equivalent to that amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A copy of account statement or promissory note;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the status of wearing, lending, debts, etc., and detailed statement of deposit transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion regarding the observation of protection and the community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. The assertion that the defendant purchased the pre-paid plaque from the injured party on credit as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below is not a crime of fraud since the defendant had an intention or ability to pay the pre-paid loss at the time.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court’s legitimate examination of evidence, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to remove the failure at the time of the Defendant’s promise to receive the return from the injured party, in response to the following circumstances:

Since it is reasonable to see that the criminal intent of deceiving and deceiving the victim can be recognized.