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

The defendant sells goods on the Internet without intention or ability to sell goods.

The purpose of this article was to acquire money by fraud.

1. On June 13, 2015, the Defendant sold the water source Samsung Samsung C&T to 1.30,000 won on the Internet website and the Korean car page.

“Along with the false text,” the victim C received 130,000 won from the victim’s name in Korea standards for the Defendant’s name and obtained the money from the victim C to the criminal account.

2. On June 27, 2015, the Defendant sold a new product at the Internet site NVV and the car page of the Republic of Korea, and “I sell a new product with only a unit of 100 The Home Hexle vinyl of the water source,” to KRW 90,00.

“Along with the false writing,” the victim obtained 90,000 won from the victim D with the Korean Sclick World in the name of the defendant from the victim to the criminal account.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of D and C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on certificates of financial transaction confirmation, notices posted in the Middle and Highest Republic of Korea, Kax dialogue, and official receipt;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The Defendant committed a crime in a similar way with the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and committed the instant re-offending during the suspended execution period, even if he/she was sentenced to one year of suspended execution on November 16, 2012 and two years of suspended execution on December 5, 2014, on which he/she was sentenced to two years of suspended execution on December 16, 2012, but the amount of damage in this case is limited to KRW 220,00,00,000, and the victims did not want to be punished against the Defendant by the recovery of all damages during the trial of this case. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and against half or more.