However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On January 10, 2016, at one’s house located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, B lending 203, the Defendant reported the writing to the victim C, who called “I would sell the net shock show film pockets” posted on the Internet’s website, and “I would send the net show film pockets if you remitted KRW 60,000,00,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

there was no intention or ability to act.

As above, the Defendant, as well as the receipt of KRW 60,00 from the victim to the bank account under the name of the Defendant on the same day, by deceiving the victim as above, and acquired the money equivalent to KRW 1,662,00 in total from January 10, 2016 to March 22, 2016 by the said method 37 times, such as the list of crimes in attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written statement of D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M;

1. A detailed statement of transfer of each transaction, details of account transactions, and details of transfer;

1. Evidential data submitted by each victim (the screen of the Kakao Stockholm course);

1. Reporting of cyber crimes;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs stored in the victim's smartphones;

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

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. An unfavorable circumstance for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution: The fact that there was a history of being sentenced to a fine not less than six times by fraud of the Internet goods such as the medium country and the country, and that there was a history of being sentenced to a fine not less than six times by fraud of the Internet goods such as the medium country. Nevertheless, the fact that the defendant, while having caused no money by the item of his game, he did not actually hold the film pockets, is not good in that he, even if he did not in possession of the film pockets, by means of a false statement, and by deceiving the proceeds to many shootings as he did, and that it is favorable that the damage would not be repaid at all: A confession and reflect