Defendant 2, 2016 Highest 3999, Defendant 3 was an employee from the “Eel” of the operation of the D in the Gu Government City C.

1. Larceny;

A. On November 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stolen thief, around November 23, 2015, using a gap in surveillance of KRW 1,455,000 in cash owned by the victim D in his/her credit cooperative at the same time; and (b) stolen thief.

B. A thief on June 3, 2016, around 06:00 on June 4, 2016, the Defendant stolen the victim with a cell phone of an amount equivalent to 800,000 won at the victim’s market price, which was the victim’s possession, using the gaps in which surveillance was neglected in Seoul Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, by taking advantage of the gaps in surveillance of the victim D.

2. Fraud;

A. On November 24, 2015, the Defendant against the victim D’s fraud is entitled to receive payment from the victim D with money borrowed from the victim D to “Eel” on the ground that there was a need for business funds in order to have the victim punished a lot of money for providing Class 1 entertainment business, and to look back again at the drinking funeral business.

“A false representation was made.”

However, since the defendant thought that he would use money from the damaged party as living expenses, etc., he did not have any intention or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money from the damaged party.

Nevertheless, on December 3, 2015, the Defendant was issued KRW 1,9322,00,000 by the above means eight times in total as shown in the crime list between May 16, 2016, from the time when he/she received KRW 2,30,00 from the victim by deceiving the victim as above and then transferred 2,00,000 won to the account in the name of F, the mother of the Defendant’s mother, from the victim.

B. On June 4, 2016, around 07:56, the Defendant, as the lawful holder of the credit card in the name of the victim, stolen as referred to in the above 1-B, from the entertainment station located on the first floor located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G underground, was engaged in as if he would normally pay the price, and thus, the Defendant is in the position of the victim’s name, whose amount is equivalent to 400,000 won from the non-existence of the victim’s name, who is an employee.