A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Around June 25, 2009, the Defendant, from the Defendant’s office located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, called “D,” the victim E, to make payment by June 30, 2009, of the total amount of household appliances worth KRW 27,910,000 at the market price, including 32 TV sets, 50 TV sets, 52 TV sets, 47 TV sets, 1, 42 TV sets, 1, 42 TV sets, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 16, 16, 200 if the Defendant delivered the product to the buyer’s address.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had a liability equivalent to KRW 16 million, and around April 2009, the Defendant had seized the passbook in the name of the wife F used in the operation of the said D, and thus there was no intention or ability to pay the price from the beginning even if the goods were supplied by the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim deliver a total of 16 units, such as the entry in the attached list of crimes, to the H residing in Samsung Refriger *****, as well as to let the victim deliver a total of 16 units, such as in the attached list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits of 27,910,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Reporting on investigation (in addition to suspect statements);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the Medition of goods delivery certificates, a detailed statement of goods ordered by a suspect A, details of delivery prepared by a complainant;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant was punished several times of fraud similar to the crime of this case, and that the price of the goods of this case is used to repay other debts of the defendant, and that it is not agreed with the victim, and considerable damage is done to the disadvantage of the defendant.