[2017 Highest 8515] On April 4, 2017, the Defendant posted an advertisement to the Internet B’s bulletin board, stating that “The Defendant would return in cash a small amount of 86% amount of 86%” to the account holder C (27 tax) who visited the Defendant, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would transfer 86% of the amount of the small amount of 86% of the amount of the settlement to the account holder if known to the telecommunications company, telephone number, resident registration number, front place, settlement amount, the account amount to be deposited, and the small amount of settlement number.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to return the amount equivalent to 86% to the victim even if he/she pays the small amount in the name of the victim's mobile phone.

The Defendant: (a) deceiving the victim as above; (b) received the victim’s mobile phone number, resident registration number, and small-sum settlement number from the victim to the Defendant’s mobile phone; and (c) purchased cultural gift certificates equivalent to KRW 274,700 in the market price by settling the victim’s mobile phone account in the name of the victim’s mobile phone subscription; (b) but (c) thereby taking an adequate pecuniary benefit in KRW 274,700

In addition, from that time until September 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving four victims on a total of four occasions, as shown in the attached Table 1 Table 1, and (b) obtained a total of KRW 1,322,00,000 from the victims, from that time until September 1, 2017.

[200,000 won, excluding fees, is paid in cash, to the victim E (22 years) who has reported and contacted that the Defendant would exchange cultural merchandise coupons in cash at a closed place on November 4, 2017. The Defendant made a false statement to the victim E (22 years) that “When sending KRW 300,000,000,000 for cultural merchandise coupons, the Defendant would deposit KRW 2,69,000 in cash, excluding fees.”

However, even if the defendant receives a gift certificate from the injured party, the defendant thought that it was commercialized and used for the cost of living.