A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Punishment of the crime

around April 2015, the Defendant, while operating a company B and “C” around July 2015, closed the business as a enemy on July 2015, and again, on October 2, 2015, the Defendant, as a company B and D, was engaged in the following activities with the establishment of a corporation:

When the Defendant came to know of the fact that F was seeking a gold-type producer through B around January 2016, the Defendant had been working as the head of F Co., Ltd. E on February 2, 2016, when having known of the fact that F was seeking a gold-type producer through B.

E Co., Ltd. has a lot of money in patent technology.

the production price of gold withdrawn without any mold, such as

In the name of E representative director H, a gold-type production contract was concluded to request the production of 30 million won gold-type 2 gold-type 30 million won to the victim.

However, in fact, the Defendant was a bad credit holder, and there was no intention or ability to pay the cost of the production of the gold in time to the victim, such as the fact that the Defendant was a bad credit holder, and the re-establishment of the re-stock company E, but no profit was actually made, and the operating cost was not properly raised.

Defendant deceiving the victim as above and let the victim produce 2 sets of gold-type 2 sets of money to be withdrawn, and around September 2016, Defendant was granted KRW 30 million at the gold-type 2 set-type 2 sets of money from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to take the property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made against D, G, or B;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of selective punishment of imprisonment with prison labor lies in the fact that the defendant has been punished twice for the same kind of crime, that the defendant has failed to receive a letter from the injured party, that the defendant reflects the defendant, that the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine since 2007, and that there is no other reason.