Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

In fact, the Defendant did not start operation in Russia, and did not have an intention or ability to supply the steering gear by failing to obtain the operation permit in the local area.

Nevertheless, the defendant 2017

4. 12. At D offices located in Yangyang-gun C, Gangwon-do, it is intended to supply the victim E with the opic opules.

On April 12, 2017, the term "the deposit of KRW 10 million is changed."

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 10 million won from the corporate bank account (Account Number F) in the name of the Defendant from the damaged party to receive the remittance from the third party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statements of witness E and G and the witness H part of the legal statements;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of each police officer against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A commodity supply contract, a certificate of confirmation of transfer, and a statement of transaction by account;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint (Evidence No. 3);

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel have the intention or ability to provide the victim with the erooper at the time when the defendant was paid 10 million won as down payment from the damaged person as down payment, and thus, no crime of fraud is established.

The argument is asserted.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant and the victim concluded a goods supply contract between the Defendant and the victim on April 12, 2017, and the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to supply the victim with the Russian clock, and at least there was a criminal intent to defraud the Defendant.

A. The Defendant.