The defendant is 121,00 US dollars which is obtained by deceit to the applicant B.

At around 15:00 on May 23, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the Defendant’s office located in the United States but did not think that the exchange would be made at the time, and to the Defendant’s office, who sought himself by b by b by dinting the need for b to exchange.”

The defendant received 14 copies of the check from the injured party, and acquired 121,000 US dollars from the D bank.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness B, E, and F;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecutor with respect to B;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on a check paper and a check purchase receipt;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 25(1) and Article 31(1) through (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning Compensation Orders and Declaration of Provisional Execution [the Defendant has sought the Defendant after prior negotiations with one criminal name “G”, and the Defendant asserted that the Defendant received the check from the victim as agreed in advance with G and delivered it by mail to G in California.

However, according to each of the above evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to believe the defendant's assertion, and even if the defendant's assertion was involved in G in this case, it is recognized that at least the defendant conspireds with G and acquired money by deceiving the victim (in particular, the 10,000 fake check issued in the name of the defendant and paid out at H bank located in Dora de de demo, the defendant's assertion is highly likely to be acquired in return for the above crime). Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The reason for sentencing is that the victim does not recover from the damage that is larger than that of this case.