A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 1, 2016, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the cost of supply to the victim E, on the face of the supply of beering,” at the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, to the victim E.

However, the Defendant, without any particular property owned by the Defendant, was liable to the financial institution including the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund in the name of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Credit Guarantee Fund”) in which the Defendant had been operating without any specific property owned by the Defendant, and was in excess of his/her liability, such as default of national taxes equivalent to KRW 30 million, so even if he/she was supplied by the injured party, there was no intention or ability

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, was delivered a sum of KRW 20,572,394 from August 1, 2016 to December 26, 2016 to the victim who was deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A tax invoice issued by the complainant to the suspect;

1. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence prior to the determination of the criminal intent to obtain fraud, namely, (i) the Defendant had no particular revenue or property at the time of the delivery of the instant case, and was liable to pay a large amount of the price in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. as stated in the facts charged; (ii) the Defendant did not pay the price of the instant supply even if he was paid the price by supplying beeing to a third party to which the instant supply was received; and (iii) the Defendant supplied beeing to an individual business operator with the said price; and (iv) the Defendant was supplied to the said individual business operator by fraud;

One of the arguments is that the name of the above individual business operator is not known and the above personal business operator is not submitted any material to recognize the above delivery, and the defendant will pay the price of the delivery when disposing of the real estate to the victim.