On March 26, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on March 26, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 29, 2015.

On May 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the victim E’s father’s house in the 103 Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, 103-301, the Defendant had no choice a company which, “The Defendant, in the field of the imported trucking business, has installed a high-priced vehicle in the Republic of Korea E, E in the area of the imported trucking business.”

For this reason, it is better to start this project.

In order to have a vehicle, such as Puaceavovovovoon, it is necessary to purchase a self-checker, and there is a used machine in China.

section 3.

It is false that the person dealing with the machine can purchase the machine to China, and that person can purchase the machine."

However, the fact was merely the personal intent of the victim to use the money received from the victim, and the victim did not have the intent or ability to establish the company for the victim to operate the company which has installed high-priced vehicles, and to purchase the diagnosis machine.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 13 million from the victim on June 24, 2014, for the purchase cost of his/her own diagnosis machine; KRW 15 million on July 2, 2014; KRW 6 million on August 19, 2014; KRW 5 million on August 22, 2014; KRW 5 million on August 22, 2014; and transferred KRW 5 million on September 22, 2014 to the Korean bank account of F; and acquired KRW 6 million on or after September 22, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Investigation reports (report on telephone conversations between complainants) and investigation reports (Submission of details of telephone conversations);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Investigation report (formers and confirmation reports) and application of each statute; and

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code for the treatment of concurrent crimes provided that the defendant is identical in the past for the reason of sentencing of Article 39(1).