Based on facts acknowledged by the argument and the record of the instant case, part of the facts charged was revised to the extent that the Defendant’s defense right is not infringed.

d. 2018, 533

1. Crimes against the victim B;

A. On August 2015, the Defendant involved in the fraud of gift certificates did not have any problem in selling to the victim because he/she purchased gift certificates for a contact at a company or tax office with which he/she is aware of by telephone.

The purchase of merchandise coupons was made by selling it on the face of the week, and the false statement was made that the purchase cost of merchandise coupons and the return of 10% of the profits.

However, the Defendant, at the time of the sale of merchandise coupons, made the so-called “return prevention” in which the Defendant repaid the debt to other persons with the profits from the sale of merchandise coupons, and even if the Defendant received merchandise coupons from the injured party, he did not have the intent or ability to return the purchase cost of merchandise coupons and the profits of

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim on August 24, 2015; (b) obtained a gift certificate of an amount equivalent to KRW 6 million from the victim on August 24, 2015; (c) around September 7, 2015; and (d) obtained a gift certificate of an amount equivalent to KRW 20 million on September 7, 2015; and (c) obtained a gift certificate of an amount equivalent to KRW 36 million on August 18, 2016, such as a gift certificate of an amount equivalent to KRW 10 million, from the victim;

B. Around October 13, 2015, the Defendant related to the bank set up a false statement with C, stating that “On the face of a bank, the Defendant would purchase a “electric card” at the bank, and would sell it and return 10% of the purchase cost of the card and 10% of the profits during the following month.”

However, the Defendant, at the time, did not have the intent or ability to return the purchase cost of the pre-paid card and 10% profits, even if he received the pre-paid card from the injured party, when he paid the pre-paid card to another person with the profits from the pre-paid card sales.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and is equivalent to KRW 7 million from the victim on October 13, 2015.