beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six 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.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant operated “D Mart” from May to July 2014. A person who additionally operated “E Mart” from August 2014 to September 201, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court for one year on August 31, 2015, and both the Defendant’s appeal and appeal were dismissed, and the judgment of the first instance court on January 15, 2016 became final and conclusive.
"2015 Highest 6646"
1. The Defendant committing the crime related to “D Mart” is going to pay from the aforementioned “D Mart” on the first floor of F apartment buildings underground of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, to the victim G at the end of each month if he/she supplied the disturbance to the victim G.
“........”
However, the Defendant, as a person with bad credit standing who bears a large amount of KRW 100 million in the course of running a set-off business for several years, operated “H Mart” and “I Mart” on credit prior to the operation of “D Mart, and was judged as a crime of fraud by failing to pay the total amount of KRW 322,740,000, and was in a state where there was no adequate profit from the set-up business. Therefore, even if the Defendant received and sold a box from the injured party, he did not have the ability or intent to pay the price for supply properly.
The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and is from May 10, 2014 from the victim.
7. By no later than 17.17., he was supplied with and acquired through deception the eggs equivalent to KRW 18,789,650.
2. Around August 5, 2014, the Defendant committing the crime related to “EM” in the said “E EM” located in the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J around August 5, 201, would offer the victim a new entry of the EM in the form of “E” to pay the amount of the disturbance supplied to the Defendant.
2. The term “assumed.”
However, even if the defendant received the disturbance from the injured party as above, he did not have the ability or intent to pay the amount properly.
The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and from August 8, 2014, the defendant from the victim to the same year.
9.6.6.250 won by June.