On November 18, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would pay KRW 5 million and KRW 1.8 million to the following day, if the Defendant supplied 200 net credit, if the Defendant supplied 20 million net credit to the Defendant,” without the Defendant’s intent or ability to pay the purchase price on credit from the victim.”

Ultimately, the Defendant had the victim deliver the 2,000 network for the same day to the “D” located at the beginning of the Si of Gangwon-do, and did not pay the price of KRW 5 million and the transportation cost of KRW 1,80,000,000 to the victim, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on certificates of measurement;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of the penalty, and reasons

1. Application of the sentencing criteria (the scope of recommending punishment) general frauds and the basic area (six months to one year and six months) (no special person) of the sentencing criteria;

2. The Defendant already committed the instant crime even though he had been sentenced to a fine and a suspended sentence due to the commission of fraud.

Considering the fact that the Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime since the period of the suspension of the execution after being sentenced to the suspension of the execution due to the embezzlement, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant’s penalty.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the age, character and conduct and environment of the defendant, the motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as shown in the arguments in this case.