If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

On February 20, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment and three months of imprisonment at the Jeonju District Court for fraud, etc. on May 3, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 3, 2014.

On August 16, 2013, the Defendant indicated that “this article is owned by, and sold in KRW 10 million, it is sold to, the victim E,” while displaying solids, such as fish containers, at the side of the D Hospital located in Masan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City).”

Accordingly, on August 21, 2013, the defendant said that the victim would not purchase the price at a non-surbing, and that "the defendant would sell the second water in the D Hospital 3 million won by marking the phone to the victim."

However, the above article was not owned by the defendant, and even if the defendant receives the article from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to deliver the above article to the victim.

The Defendant received 3 million won from the victim to the post office account in the name of F on the same day.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A criminal investigation report and evidential materials attached thereto;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, previous records of disposition and results of confirmation, reports on investigation reports (Attachment to attached records of the same kind of judgment, etc.), copies of each judgment, certificates of confirmation, and the application of statutes to the results of case search;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the choice of punishment (i.e., the selection of fine, the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime, the Defendant reflects in depth the mistake while making a confession of the instant crime, the amount of fraud is not significant, and the Defendant wishes to take into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that it is necessary to consider equity with the case where the Defendant was tried together with the fraudulent crime as stated in the final judgment

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Criminal Procedure Act;