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

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

Criminal facts

The Defendant, who operated a livestock products distributor in the name of ASEAN, paid a default on the meat processing factory operated at around 2004 and supplied the meat processing plant with animal feed to the victim FF Co., Ltd., who produced the animal feed. On the other hand, the Defendant attempted to acquire money from the victim by deceiving the f Co., Ltd. upon receiving a small area, etc. from the meat processing factory.

1. On April 28, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to G, etc., the representative of the victim company at the Daegu-si coffee shop, stating, “The Defendant would pay the guaranteed amount of KRW 150 million to H “H” operating the meat processing plant, and would be able to receive KRW 2.5 tons per day per year between H and 50 tons per month from H.”

However, even if the defendant receives KRW 150 million from the injured party as a security deposit, he/she paid KRW 90 million as the security deposit to H, and he/she thought to use the remaining KRW 60 million as an individual, and even if the injured party received from H to pay the amount to the defendant, he/she had no intention to pay it properly to H, because it was difficult to economically and economically, such as having a debt equivalent to KRW 50 million at the time, even if he/she received from H and paid it to the defendant.

On April 28, 2014, the Defendant received money of KRW 150 million from the damaged party to the Daegu Bank account (Account Number I) in the name of the Defendant’s operating company and acquired it by fraud.

2. On June 12, 2014, the Defendant introduced J to K, who is an employee of the victim, at the “J” office located in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, an Ansan-si, that is, the Defendant would be able to receive money from H along with the supply of money to K, who is an employee of the victim.

It is suggested that the victim who has already paid KRW 150 million in the H transaction with H would have caused uneasiness, and that the victim would make a direct transaction with J from the victim.