A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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, from September 201 to December 201, 201, received a subcontract for civil engineering works in F with respect to the E-new construction works ordered to C from September 201, to December 201, and was dismissed from F on January 2012.

On February 2, 2012, the Defendant requested the supply of oil to the victim who is aware of the Defendant as the head of F’s department in the “I gas station for the operation of the Victim H located in G” in Pakistan and that the Defendant would be able to settle the oil in F on the face of the week.

However, the defendant did not have worked as the head of F, and the defendant was dismissed from F on January 2012 and provided personal oil, and the defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the price even if he was provided with oil from the victim due to the debt related to the construction that he had to pay even if he was paid the construction price at the time.

Nevertheless, from February 2, 2012 to November 27, 2012, the Defendant was supplied by the victim with oil equivalent to KRW 12,824,160 in total over 75 times, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement (fourth time);

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including substitution of the suspect);

1. The aggregate amount of the statement of transactions submitted by the victim is deemed to be a simple clerical error and the aggregate amount of the list of crimes seems to be correct;

Application of Statutes

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime concerned;

1. The defendant's error is found in the following points: although the reason for the fraud of the sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act is not significant, the means and methods of deception are not maliciously visible, the damage seems to have been substantially recovered, the defendant does not seem to have past records to be considered in this case, and the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment is not written.