A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On November 16, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 42,90,000 to the victim’s office at the “D” company office operated by the victim C in Gyeonggi-si Kimpo-si B BB B, 757, around November 16, 2015.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay to the victim even if the victim was paid the installation cost by E with the security equipment installed as above.

Ultimately, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above and caused the victim to install security equipment in E around December 18, 2015.

The defendant of "2017 Highest 1131" is the actual operator of F, and around April 2016, the defendant will encourage the defendant, the representative of the victim company, to make the supply of the supplied goods that he/she has received the successful bid of KRW 34,894,00 for supply in response to the bid by the Public Procurement Service for the G supply goods ordered by the National Agricultural Research Institute of Korea National Agricultural Promotion Agency at the end of the same year. On May 10, 2016, the victim I office located in Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-si, Inc., the victim company, to manufacture the supply goods that he/she has received the successful bid of F from I and supply them to the Jeonju Agricultural Scientific Institute, the ordering agent.

The price of supplied goods shall be KRW 30,800,000, including surtax, and when preparing an application for the approval of the transfer of bonds to the above amount, it would be possible to submit it to the Jeonju Agricultural Science Institute to receive the price of supplied goods directly.

“To prepare a transaction agreement for G production and an application for approval of the transfer of claims between the victim and the victim.”

However, even if the victim produced G and supplied the above G to the National Institute of Agricultural Science, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to transfer the claim against the price of supply of the above G to the victim, and even if the Defendant received the price of supply from the National Institute of Agricultural Research of the said Institute of Agricultural Promotion, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay KRW 30,800,000 agreed upon to the victim.