When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won shall be one day.

Around September 13, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would work in good faith as a face-to-face employee” to the victim in the Dda operated by the victim C, which is located in Seosan City-si B.

However, even if the defendant received employment advance payment from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to work as the victim's multiple employees.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and received three million won from the victim to the new bank account under the name of the defendant in advance on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to cash custody certificates and detailed statement of deposit transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant, on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, has already been subject to criminal punishment more than twice as a crime of fraud, thereby committing the instant fraud.

It is doubtful whether the means of criminal punishment is effective in suppressing the defendant's additional frauds.

However, the fact that the defendant partially repaid the amount of damage is recognized.

In addition, all the sentencing factors specified in the trial process of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, amount of damage, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.