When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

[criminal history] On December 2, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny, etc. at the Suwon Giwon, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 18, 2016.

[2] The Defendant reported the theft of the loss and attempted to acquire the sales proceeds of a mobile phone by deceiving the purchaser as if he were a mobile phone that could not be used in fact by deceiving 3 mobile phones with the gallon block.

On April 15, 2015, the Defendant received 22:30,000 won in cash from the victim and acquired property benefits equivalent to the same amount as the victim D was a mobile phone in a Class A state that can be seen as above, and reported for theft and loss by deceiving the victim as the victim was a mobile phone in a state of Class A that could be seen as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on internal investigation (the examination of the other party to the victim D);

1. Before judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the defendant's legal statement, text of the judgment and copy of the decision [the Suwon District Court 2015 High Court 4513 High Court 4513 (Separation), Suwon District Court 2015No 7665, Supreme Court 2016Do3921];

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the first head of the judgment that became final and conclusive, and the crime of this case is concurrent with the crime of larceny, etc. of the first head of the judgment that became final and conclusive. However, in full view of the following facts, each of the above crimes is completely different from the legal interests and requirements for the protection of the crime, the fact that the legal interests and the composition requirements are entirely different, the victim is not recovered from his/her act, the victim’s failure to recover any damage, and the two examples of the same case, and thus, the amount of fine determined by the summary order cannot