A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a D gas station in C at all times, and E is a representative of victim F Co., Ltd. who sells insurance products of the above insurance company after concluding an entrustment contract with the Korea Life Insurance Company.

Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract among insurance products sold by the victim, if the policyholder concludes the insurance contract, the insurance agency attracting the insurance shall be paid 560% of the monthly payment premium from the insurance company in the following month.

In addition, the Defendant was difficult to repay his/her loan obligations due to the difficulty in the operation of the above gas station because of the lack of any particular property. Around June 2010, around 31 of the same year, he/she received the above explanation from the above FF’s employees G who visited the above gas station twice in the same year and used the above insurance fee as the loan repayment by borrowing the above insurance fee from the victim and using it as the loan repayment. However, he/she was willing to receive the above insurance fee by deceiving the victim as if he/she would pay the monthly insurance premium.

Accordingly, the defendant has the same damage.

8. Around 31. 31. Around the above gas station concluded an insurance contract with the victim on two occasions pension insurance contracts consisting of KRW 10 million of monthly insurance premium and KRW 1 million of monthly insurance premium with the victim on the ground that the victim borrowed the insurance commission that the F will receive from the insurance company through the above G.

However, the Defendant had no particular property at the time, and the obligation exceeded KRW 80 million, was fully disbursed as a payment of interest on the above obligation, and the above site for gas stations was accepted from Jeonnam-do around September 2009 and was scheduled to discontinue business around October 2010, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the above pension premium even if the Defendant borrowed the insurance fee from the victim.

The defendant is against the victim.