A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Punishment of the crime

[2017 Highest 640] The Defendant is a person engaged in fishery products distribution business under the trade name of “C”.

On January 24, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F at the E freezing warehouse office located in Yong-si, Kim Young-nam on January 10, 2016, stating that “The Defendant would supply the destroyed goods to G Mart on credit, and then pay the price before snow.”

However, the Defendant did not have any special property at the time and did not pay the amount of KRW 200 million due to the Internet gambling, and paid off the bonds, etc., and was used as online gold as the money entered. Therefore, even if the Defendant received the destroyed amount from the injured party, he did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, obtained the delivery of 54 stuffs from the victim of the same day, 18:00 on February 1, 2016, and 93 million won in total, of the 11:04 stuffs around 18:00 on February 1, 2016.

[2017 Highest 811] The Defendant is a person engaged in fishery products distribution business under the trade name of “C”.

On June 2016, 2016, the Defendant called to the victim I who is a H in the name of Ha, who is engaged in the so-called Ha in the so-called Hambing sales business at the Gyeong Young-si, Sin-si, Sin-si, and called to “The Defendant agreed to supply the so-called "Im the agricultural cooperative at Sin-si." The Defendant would pay the profits of KRW 2,000 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won as the profits depending on the type of extinction, and return the principal immediately upon the termination of the drilling.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the Defendant did not enter into a contract to supply the destroyed goods to the agricultural cooperative at the time of Tong Young-gu, and the Defendant was using the Internet gambling as a result of the settlement of accounts and the repayment of accounts receivable. Therefore, even if the Defendant received money from the injured party, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the destroyed goods and the principal to the injured party.

The defendant deceivings the victim to do so.