A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On February 5, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and four months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. in this court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 13, 2016.

The defendant, who operated the Damarket located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, opened the facility construction in the above Smarket and sold the profits to others.

On November 3, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement that the Defendant would pay the price within the fixed period when requesting the victim E to contract for facility construction, such as freezing, cooling equipment, display room, etc., for the opening of the D Smarket.

However, in fact, the defendant opened a supermarket and had the idea to sell it to others, and because the defendant did not pay the employee's benefits and other clients' goods, the victim did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if the facility was installed.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim construct the facilities, paid 83,000,000 won out of 229,032,000 won, and did not pay the remainder of 146,032,00 won, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the unpaid construction cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, E, and G in part;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Agreements on supply of goods, estimates, promissory notes, and details of payment of prices;

1. Investigation report (as to the Promissory Notes):

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records and the defendant himself/herself denies the crime by asserting that he/she was not a person who actually operated "D Smarket," and that he/she was a deception against the victim, not a person himself/herself, but a G.

However, in full view of the G's statements that the defendant lent his name to the defendant and was in charge of the business of F or Dmarket in the name of Dmarket, the defendant actually operates Dmarket.