Seized evidence 1 to 3 shall be confiscated.

The defendant is an applicant for compensation.

On May 29, 2016, the Defendant sent a letter to purchase a bank on the Internet portal site “E” bulletin board at the mutual influorite conference located in the Dong-dong, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, on May 29, 2016, sent KRW 972,500 to the victim C (hereinafter referred to as “I, 35 years of age”) who called “to deposit the price of the goods and sell the bank on the face of the State,” and received money from the victim of the same day, from the victim of C&C, the amount of KRW 172,50 to the (F) bank account of the Republic of Korea C&C (hereinafter referred to as “E”).

However, since the defendant did not have any fladar at the time, even if he received money from the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to sell the fladar.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was transferred KRW 972,50 from the victim by deceiving the victim as above.

In addition, the Defendant was transferred KRW 7,683,200 by deceiving the victims on 19 occasions from October 1, 2015 to July 11, 2016, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

"2016 Highest 3816"

1. On January 17, 2016, the Defendant against the Victim G, in spite of no intent or ability to sell factual goods in the Jung-gu, Daejeon (Seoul), Daejeon (Seoul) (hereinafter “Seoul”) and visited the Victim G, who posted a statement on the Defendant’s bulletin, to the effect that “the sale of the gab” is “the sale of the gab” posted by the Defendant on the Kabbook, and then, to the effect that “1,646,400 won is delivered to the Defendant G, who first remitted the 1,646,40 won.”

“Along on 12:44 on the same day from the injured party, the said money was transferred to the virtual bank account of the National Bank of Twitk on the Internet site designated by the Defendant.

2. Fraud and intimidation to the victim I;

A. On March 13, 2016, the Defendant posted a letter of intent or ability to sell goods to the Jung-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City). Notwithstanding that the Defendant did not have an intent or capacity to sell goods, he/she visited NAV overseas purchasing agency car page and sought an estimate of the overseas delivery clothes on that car page bulletin board.