On December 4, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud in the Goyang Branch of the District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 13, 2016.

On June 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the “D” office of the victim’s “D” office that manufactures Seodaemun-gu, etc., that “E, a person in charge of accounting of the victim’s life interest, is well aware of the person in charge of purchase of Maart as agricultural cooperatives, and offer good offices so that Maart’s expenses for leave, meal expenses, etc. may be supplied to Maart as one of the agricultural cooperatives, on the face of the week.”

However, in fact, the defendant was aware of F's contact information as agricultural cooperatives, and was able to give friendship and arrange for the supply contract, and was able to receive money as intermediary activity expenses from the injured party, and did not have any intent or ability to arrange for the delivery of f's penal detention.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving E and deceiving it from the damaged party, was KRW 12.1 million around June 2, 2014, and the same month.

4. Two million won, and the same month.

5. 2.8 million won, and the same month.

9. 1.5 million won was remitted to a national bank account under the name of the defendant.

As a result, the defendant acquired the total of KRW 18.4 million from the damaged person on four occasions under the pretext of mediation activity expenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A detailed statement of receipt and trading of cash;

1. Previous convictions: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, investigation reports (prior convictions and confirmation of latter concurrent relations - Attachment of written judgments); and

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, provided that the sentencing guidelines do not apply to concurrent crimes, since the reason for sentencing Article 39(1) is concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act for the reasons for sentencing.

[The favorable circumstances] The crime of fraud in the same way as this case is committed.