On August 13, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daejeon District Court, and the judgment was finalized on May 27, 2014. On September 25, 2014, the execution of the sentence was terminated in Daejeon Prison.

On August 13, 2015, through C, the Defendant, a subordinate employee, made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the balance after one week from the date of installation, the down payment, and the date of installation,” to the victim E, who is a interior business operator, in the office No. 101, 2104, the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Do 101 and 2104, and to the victim E, a interior business operator.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if the victim establishes a household, etc. in the office.

Around August 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) caused the victim to establish office households, such as books, pions, and chairs, equivalent to the total market value of KRW 11,903,00,000, which is owned by the victim; (c) had the victim establish the above D apartment units 101, 2104; and (d) had the victim acquire property benefits equivalent to the same amount due to the failure to pay the price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement of witness E, F, and C in the five-time public trial records;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor to E and C;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and C;

1. A contract for transfer or acquisition of rights;

1. Character messages;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and investigation report (the confirmation of the expiration date of the term of punishment);

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 defendant and his defense counsel did not have the intent to obtain fraud on the ground that the defendant requested return of the household following the day on which the defendant was established a household as above, on the grounds that he requested return of the household, etc.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to each of the above evidence, there is no fact that the defendant paid part of the price until the establishment of a household is completed, and the return of the household to both postal offices in the situation where there was a dispute with the victim.