A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 2016, the Defendant supplied minccot to the victim C around November 2016, “As there is a demand on the Chinese side, the Defendant would sell minccot to the supply site and make several scam transactions, and other clothes will also be traded.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant received a minc set from the injured party, and did not go through a normal procedure, and did not think that the Defendant would pay the amount from the customer in North Korea to the injured party through the minc cke, and the Defendant did not have any economic capability, and it was not clear whether the Defendant could receive the payment from the customer in North Korea, so there was no intention or ability to pay the amount, even if the minc cke is supplied from the injured party, that is, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay it.

Ultimately, on November 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a minc 21 punishment amounting to KRW 6,224,60,240, total sum of KRW 16,224,660, around 6,780,420, around November 15, 2016, in total, KRW 9, minc 21,000, around 2,880,000, around November 25, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C and the witness D's partial statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on acceptance of goods;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of conviction under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence of the Criminal Act (i.e., sentencing in consideration of the following factors), asserts that he was aware that he was supplied with goods from D, not the victim, and that the victim was not aware of the fact that there was a demand from the Chinese side, and that the time for payment was not specified. Rather, the Defendant agreed with the victim to pay the amount to the victim if the payment was made by selling the goods in North Korea, and received minc coke supply. Therefore, there was no deception, and there was no intention of defraudation.