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

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 4, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F, who operates a fish feed distributor company in the name of E in the e-mail fish plantation operated by the Defendant located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, stating that “The Defendant would pay partial payment and pay the full payment at the time of the completion of the shipment, whenever he ships fish feed on credit at the Jeju-do level.”

However, even if the Defendant was supplied with feed by the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount at the time of the shipment of the feed, on the ground that even if he was supplied with feed on credit with the victim, it was difficult for the Defendant to fully repay the existing obligation and the victim’s payment due to the total sales, even if he was supplied with feed on credit with the victim, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the amount at the time of shipment of the feed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 79,080,000 won in total from September 5, 2012 to February 27, 2012, as shown in the separate crime list, from around September 5, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F and J;

1. Each fact-finding certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to contracts, books, and performance notes;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act, the Defendant alleged that he/she notified the Defendant that he/she had creditors to receive the advance payment in preference to the victim, and that he/she did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount of feed from the beginning, as the quantity of total shipment was less than anticipated.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence, the Defendant.