A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has run a public bath business on the 2 and 3th floor of Gwangju Mine-gu, with the trade name of “Crata”.

In fact, the Defendant was liable for the debt KRW 1.2 billion to the smuggling, and around October 2012, the debt interest rate was 14 billion, and there was a lack of financial circumstances, including management expenses and electricity tax amounting to KRW 10 million, KRW 700,000, KRW 18,000,000, and approximately KRW 18,000,000 gas costs.

Moreover, as long as the sales and performance have not been good due to competition with the surrounding business entities and economic depression, the continuous operation of the business was difficult, as long as it is not possible to provide additional financing.

1. Despite the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant was committed as if he were able to normally operate friendship without sufficiently explaining or notifying such circumstances. On October 2, 2012, the Defendant had the Defendant-friendly E enter into a new contract with the victim in the above friendship or by letting the Defendant remit the deposit amount of KRW 10 million to the F’s account with which he/she was liable.

2. Despite the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant committed a crime against the Victim F as if he/she were able to normally operate friendship without sufficiently explaining or notifying such circumstances. On October 2, 2012, the Defendant received delivery by having the Defendant-friendly E enter into a new contract with the Victim F by having the Defendant enter into a contract with the Defendant’s friendship around October 2, 2012, and wired KRW 3 million to G account in which he/she was liable for debt.

3. Despite the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant’s act of committing the crime with the victim H was committed as if he were able to normally operate the well-being without sufficiently explaining or notifying such circumstances. From October 22, 2012, the Defendant’s act of committing the crime with the Defendant’s pro-friendly E in the above friendship or the Defendant’s act of signing the contract with the victim H.