Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On September 20, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and two years and six months at the Seoul Western District Court on September 20, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 9, 2012.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant operated “E” producing mobile phone cases, etc.

On May 201, the Defendant stated that “If the Defendant loaned money to the Defendant because it is difficult for the Company to pay money, the Defendant would pay the money until May 28, 2011, and issue a check of shares that is endorsed as collateral,” at the H office of the victim G management of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Police Officer.

However, from December 208, the Defendant was unable to pay the above borrowed money properly because it was operated by the so-called “defensive” method, such as lending money from another person due to the difficulties in the management of E, and settlement of checks and bills issued by another person. The Defendant issued a check endorsed in the name of I for the purpose of collateral security to the victim, but I did not intend to guarantee the payment of the check actually.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was given KRW 16 million from the victim’s occupation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of G;

1. A copy of each unit ticket and a copy of a bankbook;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry reports and copies of each written judgment;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense. Article 347 (1) of the said Act;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The grounds for judgment of conviction and sentencing under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse;

1. As to this part of the facts charged, the defendant asserts that he did not deceiving the victim G because he obtained his consent to use the name of the I test.

In light of the fact that the Defendant made and used the I’s name plates before the instant case as seen below, it may be viewed that the Defendant obtained the consent of endorsement in its name.