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

Punishment of the crime

(State)The defendant is the actual operator of D.

On April 21, 2014, the Defendant decided to be supplied with leather, which is operated by the Defendant located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, to be supplied by the victim F.

However, in fact, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price for supply because he/she had a debt amounting to 1.3 billion won at the time, and he/she had an intention to manufacture and sell the new product to the leather original group received from the victim and repaid the above debt with the price.

As such, the defendant deceivings the victim and deceivings the victim, from April 24, 2014 to the same year.

5.2. By the end of 2.2, the supply amount of KRW 193,290,521 to the above leathers total amounted to KRW 55,783.7.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Details of transactions, and tax invoices;

1. Two copies of promissory notes; and

1. A copy of the details of transactions in the Public Procurement Service and the D account;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (No. 20, 23) (Evidence List);

1. In full view of the relevant legal provisions on criminal facts and the reasons for sentencing of Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment) [Scope of Recommendation] General Fraud (at least KRW 100 million, less than KRW 500 million), the mitigation area (from October to February 6) [Special Mitigation], the mitigation area (at least KRW 100 million), imprisonment for 10 months], or the recovery of considerable damage (at least 10 months of sentence] evidence, the Defendant merely intended to repay the amount to other creditors, such as the Defendant’s will, even if he/she was supplied to the Government Procurement Service after having received leather, and did not have an intent to pay the original amount to the victim, unless otherwise specifically remaining. Even if there were some intent to pay the amount, it appears that the Defendant was aware that there was no sufficient means to make the victim repay even if he/she had received the supply amount from the Government Procurement Service at the time of the transaction.