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

Punishment of the crime

On April 29, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul High Court to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims (Rape in Relatives) and on April 29, 2010, and completed the execution of the sentence.

[2011 Highest 2298]

1. The Defendant and C conspired with D to present the financing bill as if it were acquired in the real transactional relationship and to accept discount money from the bill.

On September 14, 2010, the Defendant sought and endorsed a promissory note of KRW 48 million at the face value of G issuance, through the representative of the State E, who is his third type of E, and requested D to grant the discount of the said note to the victim H on September 15, 2010.

C Around September 28, 2010, the victim H, who sought a place at the C Operation J office located on the first floor of the PJ office of the PU on the first floor of the PU, made a false statement to the effect that “this promissory note sells rice to the (State) G, and received on September 14, 2010 as the rice price after the issuance of a tax invoice. If a promissory note is not paid, it will be liable for all of the internal responsibilities and settlement. At present, rice retail business is run in the rice market, and since there were many taxes in this nine months, it will not be known and send cash.” The said promissory note made an endorsement and then drawn up a written confirmation to the same effect.

Defendant and C received a total of KRW 5,00,000 from the victim H to the Agricultural Cooperative (L) account in the name of K operated by D around September 20, 2010, from around October 29, 2010, the Defendant and C received a total of KRW 30,000,000 from around six times, as shown in the separate crime list 3.

However, the above promissory note is a financing bill and is not a bill issued as the price for rice transactions, and the defendant and C did not have the intent or ability to assume the responsibility even if the above promissory note is not settled normally.

As a result, Defendant, C, and D were provided 30,000,000 won by deceiving the victim H in collusion with the victim H.

[2011 Highest 3212]